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) < ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... >

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,23:12    Hey you bunch of "church burners"! Geez, I don't get it. Some "celebrity" here can poke UD with a stick. I simply ask Barry for his "Empirical Evidence" and my post never sees the light of day. Quote DS : Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to do this and that’s the bane of the study of evolution in the distant past. It attempts to reconstruct unwitnessed, unrepeatable events in the remote past where most of the physical evidence has been long destroyed and nothing remains but imprints in rocks. Help me out here, but why do they think ID can do a better job of it? Behe even admitted in court that the "Designer" might be dead and no longer active. I need to point out that Dave misses genes in this argument. Gene comparison strengthened our view of common ancestry that the fossil finds clearly pointed to. This, in itself, is our window view into the distant past. Nothing of this, in any way, supports ID, not a scrap of data. So yeah, keep on squealing about evolution but remember that ID has nothing, nothing at all. It seems that most ID people are just undercover creationists. For this reason common descent is attacked as a main target. When people like Dave says that he thinks common descent is true he gets attacked by his own ilk. Why? My bet on it is that Dave really believes in evolution. He just uses another name, ID. Sure, he whines and cries about the gaps like the rest of the creationists, but his acceptance of common descent was really an acceptance of evolution. It sure as He_ll was not an acceptance of creationism ID. So, they keep on moaning about the gaps in evolution, where ID and creationism is nothing by one BIG gap. We have data to support out views, they have religious texts. On the occasion where they quote the data, it is not data that they gathered. No, but they feel they are smart enough to criticise and interpret actual data and tell the researches to shut up (remember that thread)? They might call us church burners out of hatred, but they are rapists... DATA rapists.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,23:54    Renier, Do not get too upset with the ID crowd. The vast majority have already decided what they believe. Evidence will not persuade them of anything at all (if it goes against what they want to believe). The only reason I can think of to respond to a creationist claim is to inform an undecided lurker.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,00:25    Noted Stephen. You are right. Evidence will not help them. I just get angry with their dishonest tactics and lies. How's things going with the "Science, just Science" project? What was the url again?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,02:12    Here you go renier: http://justscience.1.forumer.com/index.php?act=idx I havnt checked in for a while, been too busy with other things.   As for UD, that stands for "uncommon descent" does it not?  I have always wondered why they dont call it "Uncommon dissent", since that would be a nice play on the similarity between descent and dissent when pronounced badly, and also would suggest that this is a lone voice against the "Darwinian hegemony".   Message to anyone reading this- feel free to steal the suggestion for your own blog, as long as you credit me with the idea.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,02:20    Quote (Renier @ Mar. 30 2006,06:25) Noted Stephen. You are right. Evidence will not help them. I just get angry with their dishonest tactics and lies. How's things going with the "Science, just Science" project? What was the url again? The UK project is a tad slow. We seem to be a bit short on a target. But that is a god thing. Creationism (as science) does not seem to be "taking-off" in the UK. I hope it stays that way. I do not fancy the problems that USA education has. We have a few "Vardy" schools where there maybe a problem. But on the-whole the UK seems more logical than the ID crowd. The site is here. EDIT: I may be wrong. Perhaps we will end-up with the same stupid dishonest arguments.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,02:34    Quote Creationism (as science) does not seem to be "taking-off" in the UK. I hope it stays that way. The fundie activists have a huge groundswell of support from the Bible Belt culture. The UK have nothing like it for the fundies to build on and I doubt they can ever achieve a real breakthrough in the UK or anywhere else there is not an existing foothold. Imperfect as it is, the UK education system will not lend itself to a religious takeover very easily, either. It is even better where the Anglo-Saxon  colonial cultural influence  is lacking. I think you have every reason to be optimistic, Stephen.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:11    The newest entry by none other than WAD hisself is titled, "Evolution in free-fall."  Are we about to meet our "Waterloo" again?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:23    The fact there's no link to the original article is a clue.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:45    Guthrie, Uncommon Dissent is the title of one of Dembski's books, but I think he said somewhere that when he started his blog the name was unavailable.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:46    Quote Don't forget Barry Arrogant.  He's new, but quite retarded. Barry Arrogant is the Carmelo Anthony of tard. He's young and flashy and has a lot of potential, but no rings on his finger yet. We'll have to see what he's really made of.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:47    Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 30 2006,08:12) As for UD, that stands for "uncommon descent" does it not?  I have always wondered why they dont call it "Uncommon dissent", since that would be a nice play on the similarity between descent and dissent when pronounced badly, and also would suggest that this is a lone voice against the "Darwinian hegemony".   Message to anyone reading this- feel free to steal the suggestion for your own blog, as long as you credit me with the idea. Hey, that was my idea, too. Get in line! (Actually, I'm pretty sure I've had that thought by seeing that title before- maybe on the url? Could be it was WD's original idea and dropped it when he realized it was incompatible with his claims for a growing ID support around the globe...) -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:52    Quote “One practical benefit is they wouldn’t have to waste time trying to gratuitously fit the word “evolution” into everything they publish in order to get the tacit approval of influential senior scientists, who are predominantly atheists, who might not otherwise view the work or the author favorably.” Okay, so they can save some ink. But I’m still not sure that I see how their day-to-day activities would change. Let’s take the article that Dembski referenced as an example (which is not, as the post title suggests, making the claim that natural selection developed Boolean logic). Suppose for the moment that the researchers who wrote the article were supporters of ID (I’m presuming they are examples of the ‘genomic luddites’ you mentioned, though I could be wrong). What would they have done differently, if anything, in their research? Would they even have carried out that research? Would they have presented their results differently? You’ve implied that ‘time and chance’ is incapable of explaining the complexity of genetic structure. Okay. Suppose the authors had agreed with that. Would their research program look any different in any significant way, and if so, how? I can’t answer this unless you give me a specific example of a research program. -ds Dave, you can't just tell us what the ID research program looks like in that area? He's probably too busy doing ID experiments to answer.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:02    Quote The newest entry by none other than WAD hisself is titled, "Evolution in free-fall."  Are we about to meet our "Waterloo" again? LOL if i were an evolutionary biologist, I think I'd walk around wishing everyone Good Waterloo. "Waterloo to you sir." "And good Waterloo to you. How are you doing this fine Waterloo?"

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:08    Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 30 2006,09:45) Guthrie, Uncommon Dissent is the title of one of Dembski's books, but I think he said somewhere that when he started his blog the name was unavailable. Thanks sanctum, I havnt actually read any of his books.  Just some of his online bloviating.  I wonder who has the url then?   As for the UK, I have seen a fair number of letters to papers, with people asserting that ID is correct, without any back up.  I think they are just reading stuff from the USA without fully understanding it, and as long as they keep out of the schools, and get whacked down whenever they show their head, we'll be ok.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:18    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,10:02) LOL if i were an evolutionary biologist, I think I'd walk around wishing everyone Good Waterloo. "Waterloo to you sir." "And good Waterloo to you. How are you doing this fine Waterloo?" That is a Waterlootastic idea.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:21    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,09:52) Dave, you can't just tell us what the ID research program looks like in that area? He's probably too busy doing ID experiments to answer. DT may not have any research program to point to, but thanks to PT, we now know about their ID model: http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR056/56angels.html -------------- "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 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:31    Quote (GCT @ Mar. 30 2006,10:18) 2--> Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,102) LOL if i were an evolutionary biologist, I think I'd walk around wishing everyone Good Waterloo. "Waterloo to you sir." "And good Waterloo to you. How are you doing this fine Waterloo?" That is a Waterlootastic idea. But then everyone will think you are Abba fans...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:34    Barry Arrogant has a tough row to hoe. It's hard competing with Tard Hall of Famers like Doug Moron: Quote It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure. Comment by dougmoran — March 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm Quote But then everyone will think you are Abba fans... well, I am ha-ving the time-of my life...

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:55    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,10:34) It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure. Comment by dougmoran — March 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm Okay, look, I TOLD you last time you cited that quote it took 6 months off my lifespan just reading it and who KNOWS how many brain cells it cost me. So don't do it again. (I like how DougMoron always misspells 'atheist', like it's the superlative of an adjective: "George may be athy, but PZ is the athiest one of all". I'd almost think it's deliberate.) -------------- "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

bourgeois_rage Posts: 117 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:58    DaveSlot strikes again Quote I’d like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It’s about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even smarter than he does now. First Newman writes nursery rhymes, and is obviously a quack. Dave must have figured that the argument is complete bunk from the get go. Quote Update: Awe shucks. It looks like I was wrong. The adversary is Dr. Robert C. Newman who was awarded a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from (Ivy League) Cornell in 1967. Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography. What’s next for Nick, a doctorate in basket weaving from the ITT Technical Institute? Theoretical Astrophysics is pretty much your stereotypical rocket science and far beyond Nick’s meager intellectual abilities. My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison. Oh, wait! Did you say that you have a doctorate from a big name school? Well obviously, my first statement was an emotional statement. Now that I have thought it thru, there is clearly some merit to you arguments, Dr. Newman. *cough* Appeal to Authority *cough* Ad Hominem *cough* Excuse me, I don't know what overcame me. Was this too obvious to even point out? -------------- Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:05    Quote Okay, look, I TOLD you last time you cited that quote it took 6 months off my lifespan just reading it and who KNOWS how many brain cells it cost me. So don't do it again. LOL I know. reading that quote is like getting hit by Mike Tyson, it makes me punchdrunk.

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:05    I'm not athy.  The toves that gyre and gimble in the wabe are athy. Oh, no, sorry, that's slithy toves.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:20    all mimsy were the Doug Morons and the Dave Tards outgrabe

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:26    Some clever wordsmith here needs to write a full-length version of Jabberwembski. Line for line, more nonsense than Lewis Carroll.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:30    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,11:20) all mimsy were the Doug Morons and the Dave Tards outgrabe Uh oh. 666 posts for you, Steve. This confirms everything the UD people have been saying about you, you church burner!!!!! -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:56    On the beer market post (which by the way is soooo behind, since that beer has been around for a while now) there's already a pretty good comment (for humor purposes at least.) http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/973 Quote It occurred to me as I read the comments of the brewmaster, the comments about how concerned he was about the separation of church and state, that this attitude of apparently deep concern is either a totally false pretended position, or a reflection of how very distant we really are from the dangers of a theocracy. On the one hand, people like him may just use the “we cannot blur the line between church and state!” platitudes quite cynically, knowing how silly it is, but employing the language to sound deeply concerned and thoughtful. On the other hand, if it is a sincerely held fear, namely that the mention of the concept of ID in schools truly violates the establishment clause, then this is so ludicrous that it hardly bears responding to. I read an article in Slate magazine this morning, a dear Prudence letter, actually, in which the writer was complaining about how difficult it is to have to listen to her rich friends moan and whine about how burdened they are by such things as three-week Italian vacations (too boring). This reminds me, in an essential way, of how annoying it is to listen to people moan and whine about how frightening it is to contemplate the threat posed by ID to the separation of church and state. They are the same kind of whine, in a way. In both cases you have people so completely glutted by what they have (riches:religious freedom) that they have completely lost any sense of perspective about what a more reasonable definition of suffering is. Three weeks in Italy, and the mention of the notion that nature might give objective evidence of being designed can only seem like suffering/persecution to the most objectionably spoiled human beings in recorded history. Have they no shame? And this is of course completely independent of the fact that ID is not a religion and for objective reasons presents no threat to the establishment clause. I have actually had discussions with people who oppose ID for this same reason, and I have asked them to paint a picture of the slippery slope they envision. Never is there ever a single cogent picture emerging from these discussions of any kind of harm which could be seriously considered. It is truly bizarre. it must be a cynical argument. Comment by tinabrewer — March 30, 2006 @ 10:44 am I think it is suffering that I have to share my air with some of the people that post over there.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:12    Funny how those who most want the destruction of the separation of church and state are (a) the most adamant that it will never happen, (b) the most sanguine that it wouldn't cause anything bad to happen,  c) the most adamant that ID has nothing to do with religion at all, goodness no, and (d) the most deeply offended that anyone would ever claim that's what they want. Usually all 4 at once. -------------- "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: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:12    Too right Arden. "Our argument isn't religious, you just don't like it because you hate jesus. Science should be expanded to include ID, and ID is already legitimate science."

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:26    "ID is completely science and has nothing to do with religion.  So, now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about Jesus."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:38    Seems like Barry the Apprentice is eager to prove that his knowledge in evolutionary biology is up to pars with that of Master Dembski. The sad thing is that, in his case and jokes aside, he really believes the junk he posts is an actual parody of the mechanisms of evolution, and not a mere display of his ignorance. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Pages: (1000) < ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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