Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 289 290 291 292 293 [294] 295 296 297 298 299 ... >

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,07:58    Quote Have you guys seen Errol Morris's classic documentary Vernon, Florida? That's what I love about the PT/AtBC crowd, it's eclectic taste  and esoteric je ne sais quoi. 'Vernon' seems almost like Borat on acid ...er without Borat...... sublimely absurd rather than bitingly funny .... if you know what I mean.     Quote Alan Berger in the Boston Herald wrote, "The appearance of an original talent in the arts frequently conforms to a pattern. Simply put, the newcomer presents us with a work which defies nearly every criterion in the established canon of taste. The new work -- like a new theory of light or matter -- abruptly makes its predecessors appear inelegant, clumsy and misguided. This is precisely what Errol Morris has done with his first feature, Gates of Heaven." Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times has called "Gates of Heaven" "a masterpiece" and "one of the ten best movies of all time." Shades of Evelyn Waugh with his mid 20th century  satire of American mores with his novel  "The loved one" an Anglo-American Tragedy. which interestingly starts with the lines It may happen in the next hundred years that the English novelists of the present day will come to be valued as we now value the artists and craftsmen of the late eighteenth century. Just replace English novelists with film makers (of Morris' calibre). Here are a couple of very droll Waugh quotes I came to the conclusion many years ago that almost all crime is due to the repressed desire for aesthetic expression. If politicians and scientists were lazier, how much happier we should all be. ...while waiting for the server to come back on line I had a look at this..from Morris' Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control The robot maker makes the obvious statement that "He doesn't think that it is possible to have a disembodied intelligence without a physical connection to reality" He should know ...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

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,09:51    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2006,07:02) Yesterday DaveScot took up the research tools of Intelligent Design (silk smoking jacket, pipe, leather armchair, internet connection) and found empirical evidence for front loading in a 2004 paper by Nobrega et al.: That, I believe, has replaced the white labcoat for geneticists. A change for the better, I think. bFast         Quote The huge question I have on this one is how this data could have been initially brought forth in June, 2004? Has the scientific community been hiding this finding? It's so well hidden that an article appeared in the pages New Scientist four months before the actual published study. Those dastardly geneticists. Hidden in plain view!! Jehu points out, the article is being circulated at, gasp, Stanford University among Darwinian acolytes who are most assuredly sworn to secrecy. The study has even seen found lurking on the Internet along with pornographic images and anti-religious diatribes.         Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2006,07:02) Yesterday           Quote Lack of any known means of conserving non-critical genetic information is the major objection lobbed at the front loading hypothesis. Evidently there is a means after all. DS finds evidence of a mechanism for the preservation of genetic information in the conservation of non-coding genetic information across mouse and human DNA. Well, the point is that certain conserved sequences can be knocked-out without causing any noticeable change in phenotype. The general assumption is that conservation only occurs to sequences that have selectable benefit to the organism. This represents an apparent contradiction. Of course, this result may be due to the very limited confines of laboratory mice. Zombies with poor immune systems may do quite well reproducing in cages. The authors of the study note       Quote In assessing the impact of these deletions on the engineered mice, it is important to acknowledge that our ability to phenotype an organism will always miss some features, no matter how detailed the analysis. It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,10:08    Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 08 2006,07:14) If anyone with expertise in dating techniques is getting bored with AFDave, over at OE Troutmac has stated:   Quote There is NO WAY to prove how old or young the Earth is. Now, let me attempt to back that up. Sure, I know about all the dating methods… all of the "clocks". But I also know this: All of those methods give different ages, and all of those methods are based upon unprovable assumptions. And I also know that some "clocks" indicate a young Earth. Troutmac is a graphic designer, not an engineer.  So, I would wager that he would approach the argument from an entirely different perspective than Dave.  It might be refreshing to see the issue from that perspective. You're entirely right. In order to find out if the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.567 billion years, you need to hear as many different perspectives as possible. The discussion needs to be fair and balanced before we can make a choice. We've been hearing from geologists and astronomers ad nauseum for decades, and I think I speak for all of us when I say we're sick of hearing their biased POV. I'm quite glad that Troutmac has weighed in with this, with the unique perspective that only a graphic designer can provide. However, I think we still need more information. To really nail this thing down, we need opinions from a fireman, an insurance salesman, a property manager, a couple housewives, an electrician, a church pastor, an 18-year-old who works at Arby's, a mafia lawyer, a United States Congressman, a surfer, and a soybean farmer. Once all of those folks weigh in, we can take the average and then go with that, and teach that in public schools. It's the only fair, non-elitist way to do it. -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,10:28    Re "To really nail this thing down, we need opinions from [...]" That reminds me of when Archie Bunker was discussing the composition of a jury that Edith was on - "[various professions] and a dingbat".

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,11:08    Some comments from DaveScot's The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding       Quote Ah, but you underestimate the truly magical powers of Natural Selection. Thus it’s called supernatural-selection. Funny thing is that article raises another failed Darwnian prediction. It is my view that this finding should be as significant to evolutionary biology as the Michelson-Morley experiment was to the theory of “ether”. The evolutionary biology community should be in an absolute quandry in response to these findings. This should be front page news in my local paper. But we can’t just bring down a religious icon, just because it wears the cloke of science, can we? It is damning to the neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. Followed by: darth314         Quote That piece of “junk” removed might have a function that was just not tested under the described conditions. To immediatley conclude that this is prove for genetic planning for the future is premature. that does not help convicing people of the idea of ID. Jehu         Quote It is possible. But the conclusion of the paper was that they did not have function. (Actually not. They stated, "It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.") DaveScot         Quote darth ... I’m going to review the productivity of your previous comments here and if they haven’t been productive you’re going to be demoted to lurker status. He says dead-pan, as if the very title of the thread, and the intervening comments don't justify darth314's cautionary comment. Just to add a bit of irony. bFast         Quote BTW, where have the evolutionist loud-mouths gone? -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,11:58    Quote However, I think we still need more information. To really nail this thing down, we need opinions from a fireman, an insurance salesman, a property manager, a couple housewives, an electrician, a church pastor, an 18-year-old who works at Arby's, a mafia lawyer, a United States Congressman, a surfer, and a soybean farmer. Once all of those folks weigh in, we can take the average and then go with that, and teach that in public schools. It's the only fair, non-elitist way to do it. Two weeks after the start of the invasion of Iraq, one of the network TV outlets provided a yes/no call-in poll: Is Saddam Hussein been killed in one of the US bombings of his reported hideouts? The "ayes" had it, something like 75% to 25%, IIRC. One wonders what it was that went on trial this year. After all, the people in their wisdom had spoken... -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,12:06    Quote Ever been to Lake City, Florida, the redneck hole I'm from? Only if you count pulling off I-75 to get gas and a burger (or getting a burger and gas, that works, too) being "to" someplace. And that despite living in Gainesville, Florida for eight years. I did a lot more visiting of Ocala to the south than anything to the north. I hung around with the photographers doing senior portraits at my high school once, and nearly caused apoplexy in one by offering the opinion that the KKK was merely a "redneck social club" anymore. Not because he thought I was papering over their evil, either; he warned me that I "shouldn't go 'round saying things like that" for the sake of my own safety. Uh-huh, I thought, I think I know where he spends his Thursday evenings. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,12:16    Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2006,06:08) Some comments from DaveScot's The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding         Quote Ah, but you underestimate the truly magical powers of Natural Selection. Thus it’s called supernatural-selection. Funny thing is that article raises another failed Darwnian prediction. It is my view that this finding should be as significant to evolutionary biology as the Michelson-Morley experiment was to the theory of “ether”. The evolutionary biology community should be in an absolute quandry in response to these findings. This should be front page news in my local paper. But we can’t just bring down a religious icon, just because it wears the cloke of science, can we? It is damning to the neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. Followed by: darth314           Quote That piece of “junk” removed might have a function that was just not tested under the described conditions. To immediatley conclude that this is prove for genetic planning for the future is premature. that does not help convicing people of the idea of ID. Jehu           Quote It is possible. But the conclusion of the paper was that they did not have function. (Actually not. They stated, "It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.") DaveScot           Quote darth ... I’m going to review the productivity of your previous comments here and if they haven’t been productive you’re going to be demoted to lurker status. He says dead-pan, as if the very title of the thread, and the intervening comments don't justify darth314's cautionary comment. Just to add a bit of irony. bFast           Quote BTW, where have the evolutionist loud-mouths gone? Davey's threads do seem to be the ones that get the most posts, though. Must be his natural wit and charm.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,12:18    Arden Chatfield:   Quote To really nail this thing down, we need opinions from a fireman, an insurance salesman, a property manager, a couple housewives, an electrician, a church pastor, an 18-year-old who works at Arby's, a mafia lawyer, a United States Congressman, a surfer, and a soybean farmer. I'm thinking there should be a blind watchmaker somewhere in this group. DS: Quote darth ... I’m going to review the productivity of your previous comments here and if they haven’t been productive you’re going to be demoted to lurker status. And I'm thinking, shouldn't that read "promoted?" -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,13:47    They are really loving this non-coding lark over at UD. The fools. I would call them a parasite on science, but at least parasites have a purpose. Quote bFast  // Dec 8th 2006 at 12:26 pm DaveScot, they’re realin’ and a wrigglin’ — or at least they should be. Quote bFast  // Dec 8th 2006 at 11:22 am DaveScot, let me keep this discussion painfully honest, after all we’ve got ‘em this time, and we don’t need to bungle it. Quote mike1962  // Dec 8th 2006 at 1:29 pm “If mice and men had a common ancestor many millions of years ago and they still have highly conserved DNA in common, the story follows that all the conserved DNA must have an important survival value.” Or perhaps (gasp) common descend is a crock, and some designer(s) came up with all the body plans, and shared various components from a “library”, and the “junk” just happened to be in the library as filler, etc. Think OOP. Boy would I love to toy with that library. Seems like it would be fun populating a planet with variouos lifeforms that interact. Hmm, I wonder if the “angels” (read: extraterrestial brainiacs) did that on this planet? Seems I read in the Talmud that this is exactly what happened. Hmm. I wonder what revelations will come from this new ID research programe Quote DaveScot  // Dec 8th 2006 at 12:21 pm I recently did a light survey of genomic analysis software to see what it costs to get into the business of data mining the genome bank. It ain’t much. Davetard is rich! Why not fund a little research instead of talking about it DS? Put your money where your mouth is. Your nobel awaits? Or what are you scared of? -------------- 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

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,16:34    I've just been reading about the knockout procedure. Apparently, if I've got it right, the genes/sequences aren't actually removed, they are 'disrupted' or corrupted (mutated) by a recombinant plasmid. Then it takes a breeding cycle to get a mouse (diploid) that has two copies of the mutant gene/sequence. Anyway, why should it matter if 85% (or 100%) of the NAS were atheist? http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1847 Does UD think that believing in Jesus Christ as your messiah makes you a better scientist or something? After all, UD and ID is all about that hard math and science. The comments tell it all. Quote I think Ruse is right. They have left science in the dust and treat atheism as the world religion…. Scared yet? Comment by rpf_ID — December 7, 2006 @ 9:48 pm If only we could live in such an Eden. Quote Wouldn’t all these admissions be grounds to get materialism thrown out of science classes as a religion ? Surely if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Comment by jwrennie — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm That's right. If you believe what you see with your eyes, you can't teach it in public schools. Quote This is all shaping up to be a far more interesting debate than just ID/evolution. Comment by TomG — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm That's right. It's a "culture war." Quote As far as I know, the Bible is the only book prohibited  by the courts  from being used in schools. OK, the Lives of the Saints would probably be prohibited. Drew Brees, Joe Horn, and Reggie Bush? Those hard math and science types usually learned their hard math and science from the Bible in public schools. Quote It’s fine for Krauss if scientists are “doing science” and still have faith in god? Well not really. It depends on whether or not those scientists speak out against materialist dogma and it’s grand unifying theory; evolution. Yup, if you believe evolution is true, then you must not have faith in god. Quote It’s funny how he equates faith in god as something people make up in order to rationalize their lives. I wonder how he thinks that occurs? Can you decide to believe in something if you don’t believe in it? It just shows how little these guys know when it comes to the humanities and philosophy. That's teh best. Quote These guys want to be the spiritual and philosophical leaders of society when in fact they are woefully ignorant of most anything beyond their limited fields of research and usually are not well rounded even in that. Mentok is the ID guidance counselor now. Quote This type of so-called “science” is going to put itself right out of a job. It’s like these guys all suffer from a disease that makes them incapable of learning from the mistakes of history. The arrogance and elitism displayed by types like Tyson is astounding and IMHO rather foolish. But what do I know? I usually vote Republican. Comment by shaner74 — December 7, 2006 @ 11:12 pm HA HA HA HA!    Of course you do. Quote shaner said: “I usually vote Republican.” Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes! Comment by JasonTheGreek — December 7, 2006 @ 11:17 pm The funny thing is that I'm sure this comment has nothing to do with Mark Foley. Quote I think Francis “I invented science” Bacon said it best when he argued that the need athiests have to convert others stems from the insecurity of not actually being convinced of it themselves. And we have a little projection here. I think that's what Dembski and Behe's problem is. They don't really believe in God enough, so they go looking for proof or evidence, anything they can get their hands on, that says there just may well be a god. O ye of little faith in what you don't really believe in. Talk to mentok, he'll straighten you out. And be a little more well-rounded while your at it. Quote Atheists are trying to get a revival going. Not really. Quote Only problem is there is nothing to revive. Precisely. Quote JasonTheGreek wrote: “Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!” Can’t blame my behavior on me - it’s just evolution at work preserving my selfish genes! Comment by shaner74 — December 8, 2006 @ 7:42 am Mark Foley: What are you wearing right now? kid: Selfish genes. Mark Foley: Cool. Quote The problem is, when you set yourself up either explicitly or implicitly to say that God is evident via the scientific method, the only loser is God. And I believe that that is what ID theory indeed sets up. Because if tomorrow morning we wake up and find out that science has proven William Dembski wrong, the faithful are either going to have to reject science or God. mjb2001, your days on UD are numbered. Quote religion tells us how and why we became human. Eh, Maybe you'll be at UD longer than I thought. I think Jason the Greek hit on the central misunderstanding that leads to ID thinking. Quote Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means ’something we don’t fully understand yet via science.’ That's called the God of the Gaps argument and it's what YOU DO. It's how YOU think, as in how ID bots think. SHEESH! If we don't know how something happened, the God must have done it! RIGHT? Quote DI or somebody should define what Supernatural means in ID theory. Comment by Collin — December 8, 2006 @ 3:58 pm -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,17:08    . Quote Nothing empirical should be ousted. Only the just-so stories and interpretations that are the evidence + atheistic (or anti-ID) materialism masquerading as science. Blah, blah, blah. Poor Rudyard Kipling. Naturally I don't get an answer from the perpetual 29-year-old (hey, I'm going to be 29 years old again soon, too!, but may I say-- I'm tired of the just-so stories about "Just-So Stories"! You guys must think I'm so naive. Well, guilty. Nothing I post there does much good. Okay, fine, I'm on record at least--and Dembski says he's not a creationist--I'm holding him to it. Whatever, I know it's all a feint. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,17:51    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2006,12:06) [ I hung around with the photographers doing senior portraits at my high school once, and nearly caused apoplexy in one by offering the opinion that the KKK was merely a "redneck social club" anymore. Not because he thought I was papering over their evil, either; he warned me that I "shouldn't go 'round saying things like that" for the sake of my own safety. Uh-huh, I thought, I think I know where he spends his Thursday evenings. When I lived in Pennsylvania, the Aryan Nations had a big "training compound" in Berks County, not far from where I lived, and one of the guys I worked with was a devotee.  Since I (1) hung around with all the Latino and Black workers, and (2) have never made any secret of the fact that I'm a commie, he was continually dropping hints at me that "some of the boys might come by to visit you".  I always responded by pointing out that they had better make sure there were at least 31 of them, because my Kalashnikov holds 30 rounds, and I never miss. They are cowards and blowhards. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,17:59    Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 08 2006,17:08) . Dembski says he's not a creationist--I'm holding him to it. Here's a question for you to ask him, then: From the DI's Wedge Document, listed under "Five Year Objectives" of the intelligent design movement: *ahem* "Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation" Question for Billy-Boy: (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that is mentioned, and why is "defending" it one of the ID movement's "objectives"? (2) did he object when that provision was inserted into the Wedge Document, on the grounds that ID is not creationism?   Naturally, I expect no answer.   And that will be the most eloquent answer of all. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,19:39    Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 08 2006,08:14) If anyone with expertise in dating techniques is getting bored with AFDave, over at OE Troutmac has stated:   Quote There is NO WAY to prove how old or young the Earth is. Now, let me attempt to back that up. Sure, I know about all the dating methods… all of the "clocks". But I also know this: All of those methods give different ages, and all of those methods are based upon unprovable assumptions. And I also know that some "clocks" indicate a young Earth. Troutmac is a graphic designer, not an engineer.  So, I would wager that he would approach the argument from an entirely different perspective than Dave.  It might be refreshing to see the issue from that perspective. Plus, they manage to close down the only thread that had any activity because someone named Hawks wouldn't play their game. What makes this site great is, we have lots of people who scour the creationists and concentrate the funny bits here. So I can read this thread for long periods of time. Whereas I couldn't read more than 5 minutes of straight-up creationism. It's just so painfully stupid. I don't know, really, why it never occurs to them that since they don't know a d*mn thing about the topic, their ideas are pretty much worthless. It would be like me going over to a NASCAR site and lecturing them about which drivers are better and which racing teams are better. Actually, that's not even a good analogy for troutmac lecturing on philosophy of science. I saw a few races as a kid and know some physics of how the cars work, so I'm much more knowledgeable about NASCAR than Troutmac is about science/philosophy of science. Ok, it would be like me going to a site about Welsh poets, written in Gaelic or whatever, and trying to argue with them in Gaelic about which poets suck and which ones rule. People like Troutmac, AFDave, Davetard, are too ignorant to know how enormous the fields they're ignorant of are. My mind goes back to Davetard's explanation that he's an expert in things like biology and cosmology because he's read a whole lot of Scientific American. Scientific American is a great magazine and all, but 10 years of it don't add up to one undergrad textbook in a subject. If they had any idea how they look to someone with any learning in the subject, they'd be too ashamed to continue. It's good for their self-esteem that they don't know how they look. They'd be humiliated.   I've taken to encouraging creationists to get a simple Bio 101 type college textbook and read it. In the hopes that if they did, they would come back with some much less idiotic, boring, arguments. The response? "Why do all that book learnin," they say, "when I'm doing such a great job refuting you as is?" No kidding. One has actually told me that.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,20:00    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2006,12:58) Two weeks after the start of the invasion of Iraq, one of the network TV outlets provided a yes/no call-in poll: Is Saddam Hussein been killed in one of the US bombings of his reported hideouts? The "ayes" had it, something like 75% to 25%, IIRC. One wonders what it was that went on trial this year. After all, the people in their wisdom had spoken... Polls are important in some areas. "Who are you going to vote for?" for example. Not just worthless but downright weird in other areas. "What Do You Think About Dark Energy? pick one: 0 - errors in redshift measurement 0 - long range repulsive gravitational term 0 - modified newtonian dynamics ... etc

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,20:06    Quote Here's a question for you to ask him, then: From the DI's Wedge Document, listed under "Five Year Objectives" of the intelligent design movement: Oh, there's already a rationale, all prepared. The Wedge Document is just an urban legend of Darwinists to whip up hysterical fear in the populace. It doesn't say what "we" say it says (although anyone can read it for him/herself). He's a lithe contortionist, all right, Bill is. But I'm a persistent little gymnast myself. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,21:14    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2006,13:06) Quote Ever been to Lake City, Florida, the redneck hole I'm from? Only if you count pulling off I-75 to get gas and a burger (or getting a burger and gas, that works, too) being "to" someplace. And that despite living in Gainesville, Florida for eight years. I did a lot more visiting of Ocala to the south than anything to the north. That is actually how most people experience Lake City. Millions have been through it, who would not now recognize the name. The city's existence owes to the fact that I-10 (or I 20, I can't recall), I-75, and 41/441 all converge on it.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,00:26    Erm Didn't ID predict junk DNA isn't junk? isn't this an about face? "Big pieces of junk DNA with a thousand highly conserved regions common between mice and men was chopped out of the mouse. In amazement the mouse was as healthy as a horse (so to speak)." Wow, everything supports ID. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371 Three outcomes, all favourable to ID! In other news, we've always been at war with Eurasia... -------------- "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: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,00:29    Here's some vintage Tard for you... http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/729 Only Dave and Bill O'Reilly get this good. High praise indeed. -------------- "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

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,03:55    Quote My mind goes back to Davetard's explanation that he's an expert in things like biology and cosmology because he's read a whole lot of Scientific American. Didn't he get his wife to subscribe to it, just so he could cancel his subscription as a protest? Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

pwe Posts: 46 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,05:44    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2006,00:26) http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371 Three outcomes, all favourable to ID! Well, Dembski is just trying to be constructive - you haven't lost until you think you have lost. Quoting Dembski from the linkeed thread:   Quote To sum up, we might say that outcome 1. would be a recipe for complacency, outcome 2. would encourage us to take greater care and try again, and option 3. would inspire us to work that much harder for ID’s ultimate success. I trust that Providence will bring about the outcome that will best foster ID’s ultimate success. The important thing is ID’s intellectual vitality. Note "ID’s intellectual vitality", Dover's only a flesh wound, you know ____ ETA: Michael Behe's trying to cover up for Dover as well according to the PT: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/behe_reveals_th.html - pwe

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,09:41    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2006,00:29) Here's some vintage Tard for you... http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/729 Only Dave and Bill O'Reilly get this good. High praise indeed. DaveScot:             Quote When I worked at Dell every conference room had a sign in it which read “Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them”. I’d never seen that saying before but I presumed it was a common saying. Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity, I googled it and found only four hits on the world wide web. And three of the four were quotes of me! Let's start out with this interesting bit of Google-uniqueness: Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them. Wow!! How Google-original is that? About as Google-original as I presumed it was a common saying or And three of the four were quotes of me or Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity. (This tells us more about the nature of human languages and how varied they are, even when filled with stock phraseology and banal ideas.) But more to the point, on a thread titled Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them, DaveScot blogs "And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable," also Google-unique. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,10:00    Zach quoted DS:   Quote When I worked at Dell every conference room had a sign in it which read “Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them”. I’d never seen that saying before but I presumed it was a common saying. Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity, I googled it and found only four hits on the world wide web. And three of the four were quotes of me! Always important to be thorough. Lean back into your headrest to prevent whiplash:   Quote 12. DaveScot // Jan 26th 2006 at 8:18 am ...In all the meeting rooms at Dell a sign was posted “Attack ideas, not the people who hold them.” That ought to be tatooed on the foreheads of all the federal judges who’ve ruled against something merely because of religious motivation while blithely ignoring the lack of religion in the actual item being judged. Do you hear me Judge Jones and Judge Cooper you unAmerican swine?! -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,10:21    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 09 2006,10:00) Always important to be thorough. Lean back into your headrest to prevent whiplash: Thanks for the warning. The rhetorical tatooing of judges was especially poignant. Turns out that you unAmerican swine is quite Google-unusual. DaveScot makes second place out of five! -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,10:37    Bad Kristine, bad. She belly danced off the edge of the earth again. Sorry but I want to know! No, I don't really expect an answer, but if they're going to wave the ghastly materialist flag, I get to wave the ghastly Jonathan Wells' HIV-theory flag. They want a big tent, big enough to cover the whole earth? I get to dance in it, then. This stuff affects peoples' lives. Destroying science in the name of science will hurt people. Don't they see that? Do they care at all? (And I'm proud that I slipped in the Tripoli Six over there.  I'm living my values, at least.) And they need to lighten up over there BTW. What a bunch of stuffed shirts.     Quote sadly this is a perfect example of an atheist who has not used logic and reason to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are meaningless in the atheist’s world. I'm supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes because I'm an atheist, or I'm not a "true" atheist? Sheesh. I guess assuming I ever get my fiction published I should ban my own books, or I'm not a "true" writer. Or maybe I'm talking to a bunch of baptists and what I really need to do is adopt the American abbreviated burkha (blouse, skirt below the knee, sensible pumps) and cover it up, and never move certain areas of my body ever, ever again. You whore, Kristine! -------------- 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

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,10:39    Hmmmmm.... And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"? Just as ironic as a recent post along the lines of "where are all the Darwinian voices now?" or do I expect too much of ths guy? KL

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,10:55    Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 09 2006,10:39) Hmmmmm.... And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"? Just as ironic as a recent post along the lines of "where are all the Darwinian voices now?" or do I expect too much of ths guy? KL Meanwhile, Joseph, a regular commenter on Uncommon Descent (a blog known for rampant intimidation through banning), the same Joseph who 'moderates' comments on his own blog, bemoans content moderation on another blog. Joseph   Quote OD deletes all the comments and disables comments from being posted. IOW OD doesn't care about reality. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,11:35    Zachriel, thanks for the link to Joseph's latest idiocy, but I think you should have quoted a little more to let us appreciate the true richness of this vein of unintended irony: Quote [Joseph talking about 'OD', who posted against ID] Noting that his blogs on ID were full of errors I posted some comments to try to help OD better understand ID. So what did OD do when confronted with ID reality? OD deletes all the comments and disables comments from being posted. IOW OD doesn't care about reality. OD wants whatever he can imagine to be true. However that appears to be the same with all anti-IDists (ie IDiots)- they think that they can erect any strawman of ID they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real. That is ID reality- dealing with people who aren't interested in reality...

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,11:37    Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 09 2006,10:39) And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"? When Davey bans you, he's not attacking you -- he just happens to be attacking all of your ideas simultaneously. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Pages: (1000) < ... 289 290 291 292 293 [294] 295 296 297 298 299 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard