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... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,19:53    I bought that book but gave it away, disgusted by the excessive editing of Darwin and the intellectual mediocrity of Wilson “The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faith-based religion” WHY, for earths sake, WHY does Ed believe this.Because he wants this to be a triumph of biology?  And he could make up his mind, he says elsewhere the battle line is astrophysics. But all of this is crap. If the history of humanity were not a detail for Ed, he would realize atheism and humanism has spearheaded by social scientists,  philosophers and the kind. And if he were smarter he would realize these areas are more reliable than biology to preserve atheism now and in the future. “take Al qaeda, for example.  would they even exist at all if it wasn't for the very negative aspects of religion Ed himself describes above?” Take Nazism for example. Anyway this is a sterile debate and you know it. All I can say is that blaming all of that on religion is simplistic and silly. Religious fanatism can be a tool, like ideology can be.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,19:55    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2006,00:44) Is Antipasto by any chance related to Thordaddy? The style seems awfully familiar... Ask him about gay marriage. That'll tell us right away. Antipasto, what is your first language? -------------- "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

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,20:09    Quote intellectual mediocrity of Wilson LOL.  yeah.  he was so mediocre he published more than 50 books, won dozens of awards for his work, started an entire subfield of evolutionary biology, and published hundreds of important papers on evolutionary theory and entomology. I should be so mediocre. You sir, are an idiot. Moreover, You are a liar.  You were NOT able to find the quote you attributed to Wilson in the introduction to the compliation you cited, cause it ain't in there. you probably got the idea from a second hand source of idiocy like the Salon article you decided to quote instead. Quote Take Nazism for example oops. I invoke Godwin's law.  You lose, defacto. it works especially well in this case, as the reference to naziism is particularly irrelevant to the point i was making. Why do I think that PZ has seen you before?  I can see why he just flung your crap onto the BW. oh well, Godwin says you're done.  Why should i disagree? bye bye. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,20:11    “hmm, if god is not needed to explain something, and god is in everything or he is in nothing....you've given us only one choice.he's in nothing” God is certainly is not needed for a SCIENTIFIC explanation, but god can provide an explanation, sure. An ULTIMATE, "total wrap" kind of explanation. “'xian' or 'muslim' who apparently have no faith, and feel they must find god revealed in nature, or accept that he IS nothing.  With such a strawman for a worldview, it's no surprise to see apologists like Dembski invent a ass-backwards idea like NFL, or Behe create the idea of "irreducible complexity". No. The answer for them should be “god is in everything”. The guys you say don’t do that, they want to be scientific about god, “scientifically prove the supernatural”. Which makes no sense “Yes, these folks in not accepting the tenants of their very own faith, do damage not only to science and education, but to the larger religions they claim to belong to as well.” I agree, but that’s because they are trying to come off as scientists. They’ve got it all wrong about science and about  faith. “At some point, one does have to ask the question: are these IDiots going to be reigned in by those of the religions they claim?  or not?” Depends in part if people like PZ and Dawkins end up trying to ban all religion lumping them with those who do understand   both faith and science “perhaps the overaching failure is with religion itself” It’s a social thing at large. It is also a failure of science.  Human historical, economical and social reality comes first, everything else, including the science-religion equilibrium,  stems from that.

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,20:18    How about a rule about easy invocation of al qaeda? I think you've managed to excuse your from some real thought. I dont care how many books wilson has written, his sociobiology stuff is highly speculative crap. And did you read his thoughts? It s just plain shallow scientificism, knee bending to physics included. It does not get much worse than that.

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,20:26    you guys have never seen me before but its amazing,  "who I am" seems a very important  topic.. how about using your brainies instead and try saying something actually to the point?

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2006,20:49    Ichthyic, youve shown elements of thought, that I think should be enough for you to realize that Wilsons "conditional deism" or whatever he calls it, is in fact a major flop into the same confusion of not understanding well neither faith, nor science.   You SHOULD realize. That is, if you manage to get over your the beheading of Wilson as your inquestinable hero of youth (just look how you got all pissed over your love for the man)

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2006,05:34    If you guys were more familiar with the field of evolutionary biology you would know that Wilson's ultra-darwinian views are not agreed upon at all. Or if only you read more of your Gould. Stop the brainless veneration of icons.

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2006,11:53    test

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,05:13    Ant Pisso seems to me to be an atheist Catholic, not that there is anything wrong with that, but amusing to see all the same. It must be giving him quite a headache. -------------- 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

plasmasnake23 Posts: 42 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,06:29    You know antipasto maybe people aren't responding to you very much because you are coming off as a condescending person who has all the answers while everyone else is stuck in the thralls of hero worship and scientific ignorance.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,06:35    Hey Plas, I believe Ich invoked Godwin's Law a page or two back.  Nobody is responding because A.P. loses automatically.  The argument is over, A.P. is an idiot, life goes on. Oh yeah, water is wet, the sky is blue, and women have secrets. Peace, Lou -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,06:55    Plasmasnake, I agree, but this is the bathroom wall, I was excluded from the PT and I am just begginning to cool off. I bega being wiped out the PT systematcally for no good reason, only because of PZ's was afraid I would hurt his public relations. He does not want to lose his flock of mindless cheerleaders, which of course could  just plainly insult me or go off topic and remain in the PT. So I'm still cooling of , becuase PZ, mind you, DOES suck like no other, and simply should not be an administreator of the PT, either out of lack of maturity or because of conflict of interest. It hurts the debates. E.K:You won! Everything!!Congratulations!! Now go to bed, creep. Who said catholic??? Wow. You really use the blind stick badly. Where did you get that one from, the horoscope? But the whole effort to just label and forget me is so, so frivolous and stupid. Is this your guys usual "rational thinking"? You guys should change, for your own good and I totally mean it.

Antipasto Posts: 15 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,07:00    sorry, that was not E.K., I meant Lou, go to bed haha

AntiPZ Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,09:28    PZ, can I answer, or will you wipe out my comments?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:49    Dude, you need to start taking your meds again. Geez.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:49    By the way, I find this entire discussion of elections and voting rather funny, since over in the "Ron Numbers" thread, lots of people seem to be ranting and raving that this is a SCIENCE matter. Which kind of makes me wonder why on earth "who I voted for in the last election" would matter a rat's ass, if this were really indeed a SCIENCE matter. . . . . . .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:50    <quote>Simply put, a vote for Nader had the same force as a vote for Bush</quote> If you say so.  (shrug) But perhaps a few years of wanna-be-theocracy will do wonders for the Democans' backbone. Or, demonstrate that they have none.

Kevin from nyc Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:51    Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 10:37 PM (e) and if you didn’t vote against him you voted for him….in selected states such as florida and ohio…no votes counted anywhere else. I voted for Nader. Both times. In Florida. And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it. I simply replied “The Democans aren’t ENTITLED to my vote —- they have to EARN it.” (shrug) " SO YOU SHRUG YOURSELF .... to be responsible for 120,000+ dead and 50,000 maimed humans and 1,200,000+ dead trees and other life forms. you are a dog, snarling and biting at the rotting flesh of the politic. oh I didn't care for Lurch so I said ok to being spied on, tracked and yes I'm all for the death of the death tax FUKE anyone who voted for NADER especially in Florida......oh you make me sick...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:52    <quote>He feels that the Dems need to, well, continue to lose elections until that stops. If he expects the Repubs to do this to change their party, he would be hypocritical not to do the same. For those of us without large amounts of cash, it’s really the only way to influence the politicians of any stripe. In addition, he voted for the person that he thought would do the best job.</quote> As I said before, the Democans are not ENTITLED to my vote.  They have to EARN it. And they have not.  They should change their party sumbol from the donkey to the jellyfish. <quote>I would, however, agree with Bill Gascoyne and Jim Wynne that at least in the last election the stakes were too high and it would have been better to have been more pragmatic to have voted for someone less likely to lead us down the road we’re on, who had a chance of winning.</quote> Bah.  The Democans haven't done a #### thing to stop Bush or the fundies.  No surprise, since they follow the same agenda, just in a "kinder and gentler" version. What we need is a real opposition party.  Not just Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.

GvlGeologist, FCD Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:52    I'd like to point out that Lenny is being      self-consistent here. He has, many times, pointed out that unless rank and file Repubs start voting against the fundies that get nominated in primaries, the GOP will remain beholden to the religious right.  I think his words have been something on the order of, "unless the Repubs start losing elections, they will continue to nominate fundies". I would guess, based on his many posts, that he feels a closer kinship to the Dems than the Repubs, but feels that the Dems are beholden to interests that are unpalatable to him.  He feels that the Dems need to, well, continue to lose elections until that stops.  If he expects the Repubs to do this to change their party, he would be hypocritical not to do the same.  For those of us without large amounts of cash, it's really the only way to influence the politicians of any stripe.  In addition, he voted for the person that he thought would do the best job. I would, however, agree with Bill Gascoyne and Jim Wynne that at least in the last election the stakes were too high and it would have been better to have been more pragmatic to have voted for someone less likely to lead us down the road we're on, who had a chance of winning.

Jim Wynne Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:52    <quote author="Lenny">I assure you that my vote was anything other than “symbolism”</quote> Seems an odd thing to say for someone who likes to think of himself as being a member of the reality-based community. It has the ring of truthiness. <quote author="Bill Gascoyne">The notion that votes cast for a third-party candidate are meaningless is self-fulfilling. An election is not a means of betting, it’s a binding opinion poll.</quote> I didn't say that Lenny's vote was "meaningless," I said it was (in effect) symbolic. Symbols have meaning.  A presidential election is a means of determining who gets to be president, and when it's clear that a vote for one candidate is impotent in terms of getting that person elected, but will serve to get a dangerous idiot into office, voting one's personal preferences (or using the vote to express an impotent opinion) is to favor limp idealism over pragmatic reality. Simply put, a vote for Nader had the same force as a vote for Bush, and anyone with a brain had to know that going in--there's no getting around it. Sometimes--not always, I'll grant--people with lofty ideals need to leave them in the car before going into the polling place, and do what needs to be done.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:53    <quote>By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the symbolism of your vote was more important than the consequences of it. (shrug)</quote> I assure you that my vote was anything other than "symbolism".  I voted for the guy I thought would do the best job.  Isn't that what we are, uh, SUPPOSED to do? Sorry if you don't like my vote.  (shrug)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:53    <quote>People are quite good at being unable to see trivial logical truths, even tautologies, that require only a modicum of thought to recognize.</quote> That would be, of course, people other than YOU. Right?

Jim Wynne Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:53    <quote author="Lenny">I voted for Nader. Both times. In Florida. And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it. I simply replied “The Democans aren’t ENTITLED to my vote —- they have to EARN it.” (shrug),</quote> By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the <i>symbolism</i> of your vote was more important than the <i>consequences</i>  of it. (shrug)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:54    <quote>and if you didn’t vote against him you voted for him….in selected states such as florida and ohio…no votes counted anywhere else.</quote> I voted for Nader.  Both times.  In Florida. And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it.  I simply replied "The Democans aren't ENTITLED to my vote --- they have to EARN it."  (shrug)

Kevin from nyc Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:54    to follow up anyone who voted for Bush the first time is responsible for not stopping 9/11 and destroying the environment and killing 100,000 rat-ass Iraquis. Anyone who voted for him the second time is a thief and a traitor. and if you didn't vote against him you voted for him....in selected states such as florida and ohio...no votes counted anywhere else.

Kevin from nyc Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:55    sorry Lenny "Because the Democans ran two utter idiots against him. (shrug) *I* didn’t vote for either of them. Does that, in your view, make me a fundie …. ?" NO JUST STUPID! how you could not vote for ABB is beyond me.  didn;t you know what that little weasel was going to do?   (ABB = anybody but bush)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:55    <quote>Okay, then how did George W. Bush get elected twice?</quote> Because the Democans ran two utter idiots against him.  (shrug) *I* didn't vote for either of them.  Does that, in your view, make me a fundie . . . . ? <quote> How did Rick Santorum get elected? Why is Sean Hannity rich and on TV, not to mention Rush Limpballs? How did Ann Coulter’s “Godless” hit number one at Amazon the week it came out?</quote> I'm not sure how you are getting from A to B here . . . . Is it your opinion that no Christians oppose any of these people?  If so, you need to get out of the house more often.  (shrug) <quote>Well, you did say the world, not the U.S. alone. But isn’t Christianity bigger in the third world while it’s dying in Europe?</quote> Yep. So what?

Moses Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: June 24 2006,14:56    Yeah, but they don't have Carol's special bible or DaveTard's massive brain...  So what do they know? BTW, "DaveTard" needs to be added to the spellchecker.  Although I admit get some small pleasure in hitting the "ignore" button.

Pages: (666) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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