RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,02:00   

I don't know, I am very suspicious of DDT. Insects develop resistance, don't they? DDT kills insects, but what about side effects? There ain't no free lunch.  

http://www.ipen.org/sites......-en.pdf

Even God make mistakes, didn't he regret the Flood? Science is not infallible but I think science is the lesser of the evils science vs. religious creationism.  Where religion walks in, reason walks out.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,08:47   

Quote (Quack @ May 29 2016,02:00)
Insects develop resistance, don't they?

DDT-resistant mosquitoes were already becoming prevalent, as noted by Carlson in her book, Silent Spring. Evolution at work.

Barry Arrington resorts to the 'it's not inflammatory if he says it' trope.

Quote
Barry Arrington: The labels are not inflamatory if they are true, and in your case they are. You efforts to spread lies that have resulted in the deaths of millions truly are contemptible.


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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
rthearle



Posts: 15
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,09:56   

After all these years at UD I've finally been censored - apparently for mentioning "malaria" and "designer" in the same sentence.

  
rthearle



Posts: 15
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:02   

Quote (rthearle @ May 29 2016,09:56)
After all these years at UD I've finally been censored - apparently for mentioning "malaria" and "designer" in the same sentence.

...and 2 more in quick succession. Apparently asking Barry what he did when confronted with a man begging for help with his malarial daughter is sufficient to have your post removed.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:09   

Quote
38
clown fishMay 29, 2016 at 9:06 am
To add to #21:

Fact 8: See # 37

Fact 8: mosquito resistance to DDT had been a problem long before Rachel Carso wrote her book.

But, since these don’t fit in with the demonic evolutionist nature of the OP, I assume that Barry will simply say that these are lies as well.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:11   

The voice from the sky has spoken.
[QUOTE]31
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 10:02 pm
Barry: “And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands.”

See #21.

By the way, deleting comments? That speaks volumes. [UDEitors: Yes, it speaks to the fact that there is only so much trollish behavior that we will tolerate.]

  
rthearle



Posts: 15
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:17   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 29 2016,10:11)
The voice from the sky has spoken.

Posted but not visible:

Asking what you did when accosted by a man with a malaria-infected daughter is "trollish behaviour"?

  
rthearle



Posts: 15
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:32   

This post was deemed unacceptable by the UD censor:
Quote
Quote
When I was in Kenya a man begged me for help treating his little daughter, who had contracted malaria.
That must have been horrible. What did you do?

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:35   

Um ...
Quote
kairosfocus: Whoever told you there is only one relevant or possible designer involved in the history of our planet? Does biological weapon mean something? KF


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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,10:49   

Quote (rthearle @ May 29 2016,10:17)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 29 2016,10:11)
The voice from the sky has spoken.

Posted but not visible:

Asking what you did when accosted by a man with a malaria-infected daughter is "trollish behaviour"?

No, disagreeing with Barry is trollish behaviour. Supporting your disagreement with facts is unforgivably trollish.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,12:04   

Barry is taking a beating.
Quote
seversky: Impassioned denunciations of the late Rachel Carson are both unhelpful and a straightforward Alinskyite demonization of someone who is no longer around to defend themselves in print or in court against defamation. She is no more responsible for the millions of deaths from malaria than is Charles Darwin for the millions who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust.


Since most of those morons think that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust, the last sentence is certain to draw a reaction, as soon as church lets out.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,15:28   

One of Barry's hot buttons is perceived challenges to his identity as a Christian, remember? And the proper Christian response to "a man begged me for help treating his little daughter, who had contracted malaria" is clear: help him and help her, personally and immediately, even if it means selling the clothes off your back. Since he probably didn't do that, he may see questions about what he did do as a hateful, despicable attack on his religious principles.

Which isn't to say that he feels he handled the situation improperly. Surely by now he's constructed a narrative that supports his self-image. Possibly he thinks he's helping those poor people now, by spitting on environmentalists.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,16:18   

Quote (Learned Hand @ May 29 2016,15:28)
One of Barry's hot buttons is perceived challenges to his identity as a Christian, remember? And the proper Christian response to "a man begged me for help treating his little daughter, who had contracted malaria" is clear: help him and help her, personally and immediately, even if it means selling the clothes off your back. Since he probably didn't do that, he may see questions about what he did do as a hateful, despicable attack on his religious principles.

Which isn't to say that he feels he handled the situation improperly. Surely by now he's constructed a narrative that supports his self-image. Possibly he thinks he's helping those poor people now, by spitting on environmentalists.

Possibly?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,16:43   

Quote
42
zerosevenMay 29, 2016 at 3:32 pm
Hi WJM, sorry I have just seen this post. Monday morning here, and I very rarely look at UD in the weekend.

Just on the law quickly, I know for a fact that its not objective because I observe human beings make it (often badly).

This is your question:

What, zeroseven (and others like him), do you lose by believing a concept that you already must act and argue as if true – that morality is an objective commodity?

I don’t lose anything. I just see no basis for accepting the proposition.

To be honest, I act as though lots of things are objective. Anyone who doesn’t like Kings of Leon or Arcade Fire, are wrong. Its not a matter of taste. Likewise if you don’t like Pulp Fiction. That film is objectively good.

Anyway, what difference does it make? Even if morals are objective we can never objectively know what they are. They’re not written or recorded anywhere. You say we sense them with our conscience much like we use our other senses. With all of our physical senses, we can objectively verify if what we are sensing is correct. That makes it a categorically different process.

And the fact that we can’t find this objective moral code anywhere is pretty good evidence that it doesn’t exist. We eventually found the Higgs boson. But there isn’t even a theoretical possibility of finding the moral code.
linky

   
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,18:36   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 29 2016,16:18)
Quote (Learned Hand @ May 29 2016,15:28)
One of Barry's hot buttons is perceived challenges to his identity as a Christian, remember? And the proper Christian response to "a man begged me for help treating his little daughter, who had contracted malaria" is clear: help him and help her, personally and immediately, even if it means selling the clothes off your back. Since he probably didn't do that, he may see questions about what he did do as a hateful, despicable attack on his religious principles.

Which isn't to say that he feels he handled the situation improperly. Surely by now he's constructed a narrative that supports his self-image. Possibly he thinks he's helping those poor people now, by spitting on environmentalists.


Possibly?

Possibly he thinks his loathing helps them. And possibly he never thinks of them at all, except as symbolic examples of how loathsome the people he loathes are.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,19:01   

I didn't realize Hunter's blog has gone to moderation so I'll reproduce this here. Hunter's claims about the presence of a gene or pseudogene at the human chromosome 2 fusion site like this one:

"Genes shouldn't be there, regardless of expression level, and TFs shouldn't be binding there"

...kinda miss the point that the gene that "shouldn't be there"-- DDX11L2 is precisely the gene you'd expect if the fusion represents telomeric DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2705379

"During a project aimed to analyze genes located in the telomeric region of the long arm of the human X chromosome, we have identified a novel transcript family, DDX11L, members of which map to 1pter, 2q13/14.1, 2qter, 3qter, 6pter, 9pter/9qter, 11pter, 12pter, 15qter, 16pter, 17pter, 19pter, 20pter/20qter, Xpter/Xqter and Yqter."

ter (the ends) and 2q13/14.1!

So, DDX11L2 is part of a gene family that otherwise reside in subtelomeres, but there is is.....smack in the middle of human chromosome 2.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,19:54   

Quote (REC @ May 29 2016,19:01)
I didn't realize Hunter's blog has gone to moderation so I'll reproduce this here. Hunter's claims about the presence of a gene or pseudogene at the human chromosome 2 fusion site like this one:

"Genes shouldn't be there, regardless of expression level, and TFs shouldn't be binding there"

...kinda miss the point that the gene that "shouldn't be there"-- DDX11L2 is precisely the gene you'd expect if the fusion represents telomeric DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2705379

"During a project aimed to analyze genes located in the telomeric region of the long arm of the human X chromosome, we have identified a novel transcript family, DDX11L, members of which map to 1pter, 2q13/14.1, 2qter, 3qter, 6pter, 9pter/9qter, 11pter, 12pter, 15qter, 16pter, 17pter, 19pter, 20pter/20qter, Xpter/Xqter and Yqter."

ter (the ends) and 2q13/14.1!

So, DDX11L2 is part of a gene family that otherwise reside in subtelomeres, but there is is.....smack in the middle of human chromosome 2.

Yep.  Cornhole is censoring posts, blocking pro-science ones and letting through idiots like Mapou.  He will allow the occasional pro-evolution post only if he thinks it can used to to provide fodder for a "gotcha" Creationist answer.

In his latest Chromosome 2 fisaco he also offer up this bit of Creation "science"

 
Quote
Corny:  "You can see this article for the details on why the evolutionary account is not feasible."


Where "this article" is a link back to Tomkins' original stupidity on ICR  :p

A poster named Glenn provided a detailed smackdon of Tompkins here.  Corny wouldn't touch it but blew off the criticisms as "tedious".

What an assclown.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,22:50   

Barry now tells us why he censored my post reminding UD that Behe straight out says the malaria parasite was designed:  
Quote
To all of the trolls trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of the theodicy. No.

I don't blame Barry for being a little touchy about matters theodicical since the Christian religion has been losing that argument since before there was a Christian religion.

But I have to ask the ID world:  Do you really believe that the incredibly complex malaria parasite with its "exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts" that enable it to exploit two radically different hosts to pass it's species on evolved?  

If this complex and exquisitely designed baby killer doesn't set off your Design Detectors, what the hell does?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,23:26   

Quote
To all of the trolls trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of the theodicy. No.


No, Barry.

Pointing out that malaria is designed is science, remember?

The voluminous, perrenial and tragicomic attempts to exonerate said designer from any and all responsibility - now that's theodicy.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,23:38   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 29 2016,19:54)
Quote (REC @ May 29 2016,19:01)
I didn't realize Hunter's blog has gone to moderation so I'll reproduce this here. Hunter's claims about the presence of a gene or pseudogene at the human chromosome 2 fusion site like this one:

"Genes shouldn't be there, regardless of expression level, and TFs shouldn't be binding there"

...kinda miss the point that the gene that "shouldn't be there"-- DDX11L2 is precisely the gene you'd expect if the fusion represents telomeric DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2705379

"During a project aimed to analyze genes located in the telomeric region of the long arm of the human X chromosome, we have identified a novel transcript family, DDX11L, members of which map to 1pter, 2q13/14.1, 2qter, 3qter, 6pter, 9pter/9qter, 11pter, 12pter, 15qter, 16pter, 17pter, 19pter, 20pter/20qter, Xpter/Xqter and Yqter."

ter (the ends) and 2q13/14.1!

So, DDX11L2 is part of a gene family that otherwise reside in subtelomeres, but there is is.....smack in the middle of human chromosome 2.

Yep.  Cornhole is censoring posts, blocking pro-science ones and letting through idiots like Mapou.  He will allow the occasional pro-evolution post only if he thinks it can used to to provide fodder for a "gotcha" Creationist answer.

In his latest Chromosome 2 fisaco he also offer up this bit of Creation "science"

   
Quote
Corny:  "You can see this article for the details on why the evolutionary account is not feasible."


Where "this article" is a link back to Tomkins' original stupidity on ICR  :p

A poster named Glenn provided a detailed smackdon of Tompkins here.  Corny wouldn't touch it but blew off the criticisms as "tedious".

What an assclown.

I have noticed that Hunter's last few blog posts have not been simultaneously posted st UD. Has he fallen into disfavour with Barry?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,00:18   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 29 2016,23:38)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 29 2016,19:54)
Quote (REC @ May 29 2016,19:01)
I didn't realize Hunter's blog has gone to moderation so I'll reproduce this here. Hunter's claims about the presence of a gene or pseudogene at the human chromosome 2 fusion site like this one:

"Genes shouldn't be there, regardless of expression level, and TFs shouldn't be binding there"

...kinda miss the point that the gene that "shouldn't be there"-- DDX11L2 is precisely the gene you'd expect if the fusion represents telomeric DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2705379

"During a project aimed to analyze genes located in the telomeric region of the long arm of the human X chromosome, we have identified a novel transcript family, DDX11L, members of which map to 1pter, 2q13/14.1, 2qter, 3qter, 6pter, 9pter/9qter, 11pter, 12pter, 15qter, 16pter, 17pter, 19pter, 20pter/20qter, Xpter/Xqter and Yqter."

ter (the ends) and 2q13/14.1!

So, DDX11L2 is part of a gene family that otherwise reside in subtelomeres, but there is is.....smack in the middle of human chromosome 2.

Yep.  Cornhole is censoring posts, blocking pro-science ones and letting through idiots like Mapou.  He will allow the occasional pro-evolution post only if he thinks it can used to to provide fodder for a "gotcha" Creationist answer.

In his latest Chromosome 2 fisaco he also offer up this bit of Creation "science"

   
Quote
Corny:  "You can see this article for the details on why the evolutionary account is not feasible."


Where "this article" is a link back to Tomkins' original stupidity on ICR  :p

A poster named Glenn provided a detailed smackdon of Tompkins here.  Corny wouldn't touch it but blew off the criticisms as "tedious".

What an assclown.

I have noticed that Hunter's last few blog posts have not been simultaneously posted st UD. Has he fallen into disfavour with Barry?

They began eating their own a while ago.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,02:27   

I guess there is a special Corny thread somewhere at Atbc.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,02:55   

Quote (sparc @ May 30 2016,00:27)
I guess there is a special Corny thread somewhere at Atbc.

Cornelius Hunter Thread here

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,09:49   

Quote
clown fishMay 30, 2016 at 7:46 am
KAirosfocus,

Does putting a number in front of every sentence make your points more valid? I don’t think so, but I am willing to follow your example.

1 –> I think that Seversky has made some very good points and observations at 349.

2 –> Most of your SETs are wishful thinking.

3 –> Subjectively derived truths, not self-evident truths.

4 –> Most people have morals and a conscience.

5 –> This can be considered a truth based on extensive observation but not as a SET.

6 –> If we were alone on a desert island, how would we know that other people have moral values and a conscience; this can only be known by observation.

7 –> We are indoctrinated from an early age with rules, whether from church, parents, teachers, etc.

8 –> Violations of any of these results in negative consequences to us, therefore, reinforcing our core morals.

9 –> By observing the negative consequences of (hopefully) minor infractions of these core moral values, this reinforces those that we have not violated; in the same way that it requires observation to discern the truth that not everyone has the same hair colour.

10 –> Experience, observation, critical thinking and the ability to predict the consequences of actions further reinforce our core moral values as well as establishing new ones.

11 –> Some of the moral values established through critical thinking and the ability to predict consequences will start out as being less strongly held but could become more deeply entrenched with further observation and experience.

12 –> You will notice that none of this requires objective moral values.

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,10:11   

It's a start, but clown fish needs

1 -> Less succinct sentences, more contorted sentence structure, and definitely more adjectives

2 -> Comments in brackets

3 -> Quotes of previous things he's already said

4 -> Bolded phrases

5 -> Links to other threads at UD

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,11:17   

Let's not encourage flying too close to that particular sun.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,11:20   

Damn, I forgot that I'm a hypocrite: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=1170

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,13:42   

Quote (Learned Hand @ May 30 2016,11:20)
Damn, I forgot that I'm a hypocrite: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=1170

You have the gift!  It should not be wasted.  Isn't the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama likely to fall vacant soon following the suspension of Judge Roy Bean - sorry - Moore?

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,16:34   

Quote
359
clown fishMay 30, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Vividbleu: “Clown would you like to logically demonstrate simply because people have different views about what the truth about morality is DOES logically necessitate that morality itself is subjective in nature?”

Hi Vivid, happy Memorial Day.

I never said that it necessitates subjective morality. I just said that it is strong evidence for it (or against objective morality).

You must admit, there appears to be a double standard at work here. The same people who say that evolutionists are irrational for continuing to support the theory when there are some observations that appear to conflict with it, are the same ones who see nothing wrong with supporting objective morality when there is absolutely no evidence supporting it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2016,16:52   

Clownfish got some teeth :p

Edited by stevestory on May 30 2016,17:53

   
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]