Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::thordaddy thread

Posted: Jan. 25 2006,07:40

Is anyone taking bets on the odds of thordaddy actually turning up?

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,04:11

Well, Thordaddy is peddling his brand of ignorantism over at:
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

I've invited him to this thread, oddly enough he ignored it. Rather rude of the chap.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,04:29

Did you see the admin comment on Panda's Thumb? It looks like the pro from dover, thordaddy, and larry falafelman were the same guy.

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,04:41

Sorry, I cant find it on a quick scan of Pandas thumb front page. �I'll look later. �
Updated- now Ive found it in the thread about Hindu creationists. INteresting. So all of them should now be banned from Pandas thumb?

But it would be fun if its true. �I'd love to have a quiet word in private with such people who waste our time.

Savagemutt

Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,06:19

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Pro (IIRC) was pro-evolution, and has been around for some time. Larry was a real person who has posted nonsense on other boards and has a real history of kookiness. So unless the Pro was in reality, a kook named Larry Faraman who decided to post rationally for a year or so before unveiling his true kookiness, I don't see them being the same person. Maybe it was a dynamic IP problem.

And doesn't the IP listed on the Thumb have too many parts? Is that last a port or something?

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,06:28

I could easily believe Larry and thordaddy where the same person.
If ProFrom Dover is as well, I would be amazed.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,06:37

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 26 2006,12:28)

I could easily believe Larry and thordaddy where the same person.
If ProFrom Dover is as well, I would be amazed.

I have a really hard time believing it. Their styles are totally different. Thordaddy is a nasty christian wingnut, while Larry just seems like an aging, nonreligious dunderhead, tho with vague racist leanings. And Pro from Dover is anti-IDC.

Unless we're talking about a person with severe multiple personality disorder, I don't buy it. And since both Larry and Thordaddy have left traces of themselves all over the internet for several years, it seems like an awful amount of trouble to go to just to pull an extended prank on people.

Where is this admin comment? I didn't see 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

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,07:01

Well, subtle clues from Larry, such as mentioning his dads AOL account, also suggest that Larry is a late teenager with nothing better to do. Obsessive behaviour does also occur amongst teenagers.

But yes, I was wondering about the pro from dover as well.
Do we perhaps have a really odd case of 3 people using the same library computer at different times? It might explain why they dont seem to post at once.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,07:11

I also wouldn't have thought they were the same. While Larry just loves to talk and doesn't care to know anything prior to doing so, thordaddy's few posts I saw were incoherent.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,07:35

Agreed, Larry is happily ignorant, tho his writing style is pretty coherent. He can chain sentences together and you can get the gist of what he's saying, dumb as it may be. Thordaddy however, just spews a lot of incoherent nonsense, with wild leaps of logic. He looks like he has some significant mental/emotional problems, while Larry comes across like a rather normal old man who's convinced he's right about everything, tho not really like a crazy person.

As someone said on a different thread, cranks are like snowflakes -- no two are alike.

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Jan. 26 2006,07:45

As mentioned before, if it is a case of a dynamic IP address, then its loss should not be too burdensome for anyone. If it is a static IP with multiple posters, well, that will ruin someone's day.

As for "pro from dover", recall that past trolls have thought it would be fun to post under an existing name on the system. (There was the case of "Evolving Apeman" posting as a well-known PT commenter, then when he was Rule 6'd, "DaveScot" piped up to say he was really the culprit. An examination of the IP addresses, though, showed that "DaveScot" had never posted as "DaveScot" from the IP address in question, that the IP address was in the Mayo Clinic's block of addresses, and that one of the earlier names using the IP address was actually a person affiliated with the Mayo Clinic.)

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 27 2006,07:42

Hey, check out Thordaddy's latest whining here:

http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

Here's the money quote:

Quote

You seem to be making the fundamental mistake in believing that ID must been enclosed by the constraints of science. You are going on about how ID hasn't cleared this scientific hurdle or that scientific hurdle while oblivious to the fact that science is being defined and manipulated by judges, politicians and other various actors who have no use for your limitations.

The point is that ID doesn't need to clear scientific hurdles, it need only humble this intelligent pursuit. If science can answer the question of an IDer in affirmative then ID need not become science because science has become ID. If science can answer the question of an IDer in the nagative... oh wait, it can't do that. It must concede the possibility with no empirical evidence thereby betraying the very essence of modern science.

ID's ultimate goal is to put science in its place by forcing it to recognize its limitation on giving meaning to life. Science must concede this most valuable point. In giving meaning to life, science is inferior to religion.

(boldfacing mine)

If only all the IDC types were this honest...

Also, here's Thordaddy's summary of his adventures here earlier this week:

Quote

Mike, (I tried to post this a PT,where I apparently can no longer post. Is this the MO for dogmatic evolutionists?)

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 27 2006,07:44

Oo, it just gets better! Thordaddy, Defender of Science:

Quote

You make a serious mistake believing that science can continue to fight only on its home turf.

Modern scientific constraints were defined by a judge. Science is being manipulated for political purposes all throughout society. Scientists like their constraints, but no one outside them need heed their limitations as the above evidences.

Yes, most people don't care whether one theory say there was nothing and then life and intelligence sprung forth or there is life and intellgence because of an IDer. But these aren't the ones carrying on the battle.

The scientific box you are in may feel protective and resistent to outside violation, but you are merely deluding yourself. Science is constantly being violated, manipulated and used by more powerful outside forces. If science wants to survive the assault from these forces then it must give greater meaning to our lives. It must give more than "scientific" meaning.

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

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,20:39

Finally, I get to respond to this array of rants by "professional" scientists.

I was reading another thread by Shi and something interesting hit me. The "highly" intelligent scientists have very little skill in conveying their scientific theories. Every retort follows the same MO. The ignorant can't understand the intelligent. But why is the "truth" so hard to explain? Why is everybody other than those in the know ignorant of the REAL ToE and simply stuck with outdated knowledge about "Darwinism?"

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,20:45

Quote

The ignorant can't understand the intelligent

indeed. �I think that's why you have your own thread, because you're too ignorant to argue any valid points with most of the regulars here.

You might have noticed that Shi's ridiculous arguments were shot down rather quickly, and it didn't even take a population or molecular genetecist to do so.

the statements he made were patently ludicrous.

shall you now follow suit?

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,20:57

sir toejam,

You fail to see the irony of your statements.

How come very few understand ToE? Are the "teachers" that bad? Or, do the "facts" change so often as to leave all but a few ignorant of the "truth?"

I think Shi's point was quite simple. Over time, a theory grounded in common descent will show NO common descent. The change from the original will undoubtedly, with the passing of time, be so great as to leave the observer with no choice but to say that these entities are unrelated.

In fact, I believe Shi says that we have had enough time to see that now? We should see evidence of unrelatedness in the biological sphere, but we don't. This means there is a whole in the ToE in regards to common descent.

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,21:36

Quote

You fail to see the irony of your statements.

ROFLMAO

Quote

I think Shi's point was quite simple

simple it was, which is probably why it appealed to someone like yourself.

however, it's still wrong.

did you even bother to examine the flaws in his reasoning, or did you just automatically accept his drivel on face value because he thought he had the ToE "licked"?

do you know anything about genetics?

molecular biology?

population biology?

no?

then why would you accept Shi's statement at face value?

because your a moron?

yup.

oh, and learn how to spell, your grammar smacks of a second grade reading level.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,22:24

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 08 2006,02:57)

Over time, a theory grounded in common descent will show NO common descent. The change from the original will undoubtedly, with the passing of time, be so great as to leave the observer with no choice but to say that these entities are unrelated.

I think I got your point.
After a very long time of evolution, lineages that share a common ancestor will become too much different for scientists to infer their common descent therefore... huh... there is no common descent?

In other words, common descent (and evolution of course) will become wrong within the next billion years.

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 07 2006,23:42

jeannot,

Not quite! With a theory of common descent, two patterns should occur given the appropriate amount of time. One pattern would show common descent and one would not. I think Shi's point was that enough time has passed that we should not be able to recognize descent in certain biological organisms while observing it in others.

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 08 2006,01:09

So you are whining because common descent is so obvious right now? Well then, wait another couple of billion years and then attack common descent again. Or, if you don't want to wait that long, change your surname and tell you father (and mother) you no longer think common descent is possible.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,11:09

Over on my 'the post ID world' thread, thordaddy's been babbling:

Quote

The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist.

maybe because 99% of the people who show up here and at PT and argue against evolution are, like thordaddy, creationists.

Quote

The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians. What's fair is fair.

Low-brow elitists. Okey dokey.

Quote

Since my middle name is Thor and I have children, viola, thordaddy.

I have no idea what this sentennce means. Viola? I haven't heard that word since a music appreciation class 10 years ago.

Quote

I can't do anything but laugh at such an empirically paultry assumption. My parents didn't espouse ANY religion. They were too busy running their business and raising 6 boys. That's a lot of ball games and homework, you know!

Your parents were christian, and so now you are christian. Empirical Schmimpirical.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,09:22

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,17:09)

I have no idea what this sentennce means. Viola? I haven't heard that word since a music appreciation class 10 years ago.

He misspelled voil�.

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,21:15

stevestory,

You're like ID counterintelligence. On the one hand you argue about the sacredness of science, measuring methods, empirical evidence and experiments while on the other hand you abuse those very concepts in your "rebuttals." My parents were no more Christian than I am a creationist and your evidence for such conclusions is more than lacking.

You're giving science a dogmatic tint while showing scientists to be every bit as infallible in their thinking than any supposed IDer.

jeannot,

Check out your dictionary. Another scientist fooled by his belief.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,00:58

What did you mean by viola?

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,01:53

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,03:15)

stevestory,

You're like ID counterintelligence. �On the one hand you argue about the sacredness of science, measuring methods, empirical evidence and experiments while on the other hand you abuse those very concepts in your "rebuttals." �My parents were no more Christian than I am a creationist and your evidence for such conclusions is more than lacking.

You're giving science a dogmatic tint while showing scientists to be every bit as infallible in their thinking than any supposed IDer.

jeannot,

Check out your dictionary. �Another scientist fooled by his belief.

I doubt you meant infallible.

Check the dictionary.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,02:15

Sadly, thordaddy's not helping us understand what the creationists are going to do, now that ID is bleeding to death on the battlefield.

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,05:04

Viola

Quote

is:

* Viola, a musical instrument
* A type of acoustic guitar from Brazil Viola (Brazil),
* The name of a character in William Shakespeare's play Twelfth Night.
* Viola name of a character in Free Radical's video games TimeSplitters 2 and TimeSplitters: Future Perfect.
* The systematic name of a group of flowering plants. The Viola genus includes violets, pansies and violas (also known as Johnny Jump Ups).
* ViolaWWW was an early web browser developed by Pei-Yuan Wei.
* Viola is a fairly uncommon female given name.
* Viola is a surname used primarily by some of Spanish descent. Roberto Viola, for instance, was briefly President of Argentina.
* Viola is a football player from Brazil present in the World Cup 1994.
* The name of several places in the United States of America:

Viola, Arkansas
Viola, Delaware
Viola, Illinois
Viola, Kansas
Viola, New York
Viola, Tennessee
Viola, Wisconsin

* Viola is the word for purple in Italian.

I don't think any of these match the context of Thordaddy's post, Jeannot, perhaps he did mean "voil�", which of course translates as "voil�".

� propos, vous �tes de quel coin, d'origine?

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,07:31

Annecy, haute-savoie.
Je fais ma th�se � Rennes (Bretagne).

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005