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... > UnReasonable Kansans thread

Pages: (341) < ... 314 315 316 317 318 [319] 320 321 322 323 324 ... >

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,09:36    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2008,08:41)   Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:34) Yes, Arden....THE GRAND MAJORITY.  I'm not talking about my specific religious beliefs.  I said that the grand majority of people realize that design is overwhelming apparent.  That has nothing to do with what religious beliefs they hold.  It means that they realize that there is more involved in the origin of life other than purely naturalistic processes. FtK I must have missed it in the pie chart you provided.  Where does it tell us that the grand majority believe in "design"??? Or about their theory of "origins"?  Do you need a reminder about Buddhism? No, I most certainly do not...I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do.READ... I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al.  I said they most certainly believe that there is more to consider in regard to our origins than purely naturalistic causes.  I believe if they clearly understood ID, they would consider it a worthwhile avenue to be explored since ID from the scientific standpoint has absolutely no connection with a specific flavor of religious belief.  It allows us to discuss that supposed "illusion" of design without the religious baggage. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,09:45    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:36) No, I most certainly do not...I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do.READ... I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al.  I said they most certainly believe that there is more to consider in regard to our origins than purely naturalistic causes.  I believe if they clearly understood ID, they would consider it a worthwhile avenue to be explored since ID from the scientific standpoint has absolutely no connection with a specific flavor of religious belief.  It allows us to discuss that supposed "illusion" of design without the religious baggage. Providing links to Uncommon Idocy will not prove anything or advance your cause. If you can't say it in your own words then posting links to where others say it will be futile.     Quote I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al. You did.     Quote I said they most certainly believe that there is more to consider in regard to our origins than purely naturalistic causes. So what? As has been shown already what the majority believe is often dead wrong. That's why we have science instead of mob rule.     Quote I believe if they clearly understood ID, they would consider it a worthwhile avenue to be explored since ID from the scientific standpoint has absolutely no connection with a specific flavor of religious belief. You linked to uncommondescent earlier. The premier ID outpost. Jesus is their designer, as they've said themselves over and over.     Quote  It allows us to discuss that supposed "illusion" of design without the religious baggage. I take you up on that offer. FTK, please help me understand the "illusion of design". Could you tell me a) Is every living thing designed? b) If yes, then how can ID claim to identify "design" if everything is designed? c) If not every living thing was designed, can you name a single living thing that was not designed? d) Why would the designer go to the trouble of implementing all these designs and then drowning almost all life in a "global flood"? e) If not all life is designed how do we tell the difference between what is and what is not? If the study of design is really scientific you'll have no trouble quickly answering these trivial questions. And lastly Quote I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do What deity do Buddhists worship? -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,09:47    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:36)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2008,08:41)       Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:34) Yes, Arden....THE GRAND MAJORITY.  I'm not talking about my specific religious beliefs.  I said that the grand majority of people realize that design is overwhelming apparent.  That has nothing to do with what religious beliefs they hold.  It means that they realize that there is more involved in the origin of life other than purely naturalistic processes. FtK I must have missed it in the pie chart you provided.  Where does it tell us that the grand majority believe in "design"??? Or about their theory of "origins"?  Do you need a reminder about Buddhism? No, I most certainly do not...I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do.READ... You get your info on Buddhism from Uncommon Descent????* [picks jaw off floor, at level of stupidity that still has the capacity to amaze] I would ask you to tell me what you think the Buddhist 'philosophy of life' is, but I think you've humiliated yourself enough here lately. Trust me, your Protestant Fundie superstitions are no interest to Buddhists. Like you and science, they don't give a fuck. *It gets better -- a Denyse O'Leary article about Buddhism. -------------- "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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,09:49    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 23 2008,22:18) Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition. Ftk, You haven't explained why Walt and other creationists require special treatment that scientists don't enjoy: Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2008,05:37)       Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,17:22) Moderating my blog doesn't have anything to do with Wes trying to understand where a guy like Walt is coming from by actually having a long series of respectful conversations with him. A question for you, Ftk.  In science, the originators of new ideas publish them along with evidence and supporting arguments.  If the evidence is strong and the arguments make sense, others come to accept the new ideas.  If the evidence is weak, or worse yet, if it contradicts or undercuts the new ideas, or if the arguments are irrational, then the new ideas will not gain acceptance.  None of this involves having "a long series of respectful conversations" with the originator of a new idea to find out where he or she is  "coming from." Walt Brown just published the 8th edition of his book.  After eight editions, what has he left out?   If there is something crucial that is not in the book, but that would come out during "a long series of respectful conversations",  then why didn't he add it to one of those eight editions?   Real scientists are able to communicate their ideas persuasively to others through their writings.   Why does Walt need an additional crutch? If his ideas are valid, why can't he make a persuasive written case for them like real scientists do? -------------- 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

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,09:56    Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,09:29)   Quote FTKTARD-- Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition. Huh.  Ive offered to debate Behe 'live' on the evolution of HIV-1 about a dozen times.  In a variety of formats, with a variety of moderators, his turf my turf neutral turf-- he tells the moderators to fuck off.  Its beneath him to debate me.  I believe DaveTard said those words exactly, somewhere: I am 'beneath' Behe.  He is too important to debate evolution with a measly student. Do you want me to ask him to debate me on BloggingHeadsTV?  Make it a nice Behe-bakers-dozen of 'no'? Abbie, IMHO, there is a *huge* difference between you and Walt Brown.   YOU HAVE A MOUTH LIKE A SEWER*, you act like a juvenile delinquent on your blog, you cry and moan like a baby about "creationists" or "Tards" on a weekly basis.  You're a kid...literally.  Grow up, act like an adult, and I'm more than positive that Behe would consider an adult discussion with you. My God, you refer to people as "cottage cheese dripping pussies", and you truly expect anyone to actually agree to a serious debate with you??   Get a clue. Walt Brown on the other hand has *NEVER* *EVAR* displayed the nasty attitude that you do, nor has he slammed atheists or darwinists on any level.  He’s stayed out of the sewer pit we call Internet "debate" which is in actuality a bunch of obsessed people from both sides wanting to get their point in that they are right and the other side is wrong.   That crap you pulled on your blog about Behe was so unprofessional it was appalling....demanding that he respond to you when he hadn’t responded to anyone’s rebuttals of his book yet.  Who in the hell do you think you are?  You obviously have no patience, and you stomped your feet like a toddler screaming for attention from him.  Good grief, had you just acted like an adult, the guy would probably have addressed you personally in a debate or other format. Again...grow up if you want to play with the big boys.   *Yes, FtK has a foul mouth as well.  But, I’m not screaming profanities from my blog demanding that a guy like Ken Miller or the like come and debate me.  That is NOT the way to get a response. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:01    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:56) Again...grow up if you want to play with the big boys. Is Walt Brown one of the 'big boys'? -------------- "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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:05    Quote That crap you pulled on your blog about Behe was so unprofessional it was appalling....demanding that he respond to you when he hadn’t responded to anyone’s rebuttals of his book yet.  Who in the hell do you think you are? Watch your mouth. The Kids might be reading this. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:06    Ftk, There is simple truth that you can't seem to grasp: if a creationist had a bright idea, people in science would have picked it up.   Mendel did not have heart-to-heart conversations with his contemporary biologists.  His work became known only after his death.  But it was a hit. Lemaitre did not have heart-to-heart conversations with astronomers.  He published his results and they were accepted upon experimental verification.   I've seen Walt's book.  His scenario would have evaporated the oceans a couple of times over.  Brown is no Lemaitre. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:07    Quote Walt Brown on the other hand has *NEVER* *EVAR* displayed the nasty attitude that you do, nor has he slammed atheists or darwinists on any level.  He’s stayed out of the sewer pit we call Internet "debate" which is in actuality a bunch of obsessed people from both sides wanting to get their point in that they are right and the other side is wrong process that some call 'Science' * that is the testing ground for the evidence supporting an assertion. There, fixed that for you. * not that you give a fuck about that of course. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:08    So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc. But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us', even though we have offered to debate them. You make so much sense.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:11    Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,16:08) So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc. But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us'. You make so much sense. FTK Makes perfect sense....if you allow for her belief that a) she makes perfect sense, b) everything she says or everything anyone says that she likes is perfect sense, c) ID is not religious, d) ID is religious, e) we're all elitist bastards persecuting her/creationists, and f) we're all worthless foul-mouthed bastards who are beneath her/creationists. Ummm, did I get that all about right? ;-) Meltdown + flounce out in 5....4....3....2.... Louis -------------- Bye.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:12    in short he is just another in a long list of bible-deluded pseudoscientific cranks. if he truly believes he is correct (ah, the only measuring stick in your toolbox) then he would attempt to publish these ideas to the community that is trained and equipped to evaluate his claims. of course he does not.  my suggestion is that either 1)  knows he is wrong or 2)  doesn't give a fuck (much like you and science, perhaps you have common ground?).  Either way, his actions show only a willingness to keep up the circus parade via the interwebz, relying on the debilitating common denominator of apathetic stupidity wedded to indignant identity politics.  That, instead of proceeding to verify his predictions and support his claims in the ONLY COMMUNITY ON EARTH THAT GIVES A FUCK:  Science. brazen belligerent bellicose braindead berating from bible-bleating bloggers not withstanding, Walt's ideas are dead in the water.  buhbye -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:14    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:36) I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al.   But you did. On the previous page.   Quote I said that the grand majority of people realize that design is overwhelming apparent. And, as others pointed out to you, you're wrong about the beliefs (re origins and design) of many of those other religions. Finally, as others have pointed out to you ad infinitum, it really doesn't matter, even if your pie chart said what you think it says. Science ain't a democracy. Ideas count more than number of adherents. If ID/creationism had even a shred of usefulness in its ideas, it should be able to get some traction in the scientific world. If Walt's ideas had any merit, somebody (probably not Walt) would be publishing papers rather than hiding in corners while simultaneously demanding respect. As for whether you "know more about philosophy of life than I do", I'm not gonna touch that one. This is about science, remember? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:20    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:11) FTK Makes perfect sense....if you allow for her belief that a) she makes perfect sense, b) everything she says or everything anyone says that she likes is perfect sense, c) ID is not religious, d) ID is religious, e) we're all elitist bastards persecuting her/creationists, and f) we're all worthless foul-mouthed bastards who are beneath her/creationists. Ummm, did I get that all about right? Do try and be nice, Louis.  Poor FTK just had an EEG and is trying to interpret the results. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:20    FTK, I've asked you a really simple question that requires a two word answer from you (maximum). It is not a trick question, it is not a mocking question, it is a simple and sincere question, please answer it. In case you forgot here it is again: I'm going to try to get down to the very basics here FTK. What is this a picture of? I am being deadly serious by the way. I want you to tell me, in all seriousness, what that picture shows. In addition, I'm going to ask you a very simple question that requires either a "yes" or a "no" answer. Anything more will fall outside the remit of the question and mean you have not understood it. Here it is: Is it possible that I am right about origins/evolution and you are wrong about origins/evolution? I am not asking if I am right, just if it is possible if I'm right. So two questions for you there, one about that picture, one about a possibility. They will take you a total of about 3 words to answer, and possibly all of 1 minute to post up that answer. I'm not asking for much, please answer them. They are sincere, proper questions, not in any way intended to mock, patronise or insult you. Thanks very much. Louis ETA: P.S. If you answer those two simple questions, I will also answer them. I'm trying to build a position of consensus and have that respectful dialogue you claim to so desire. We have to start off somewhere very simple that is utterly uncontroversial and work, philosophically from there. Please work with me here, as far as respectful dialogue is concerned I am on your side, but FTK, with all your drama and foolishness you are making it hard for me not to mock you pretty mercilessly. Help me be a better person, answer those questions as if you thought I was nice. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:27    Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2008,16:20) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:11) FTK Makes perfect sense....if you allow for her belief that a) she makes perfect sense, b) everything she says or everything anyone says that she likes is perfect sense, c) ID is not religious, d) ID is religious, e) we're all elitist bastards persecuting her/creationists, and f) we're all worthless foul-mouthed bastards who are beneath her/creationists. Ummm, did I get that all about right? Do try and be nice, Louis.  Poor FTK just had an EEG and is trying to interpret the results. LOL But I AM trying to be nice. Admittedly FTK is making it difficult not to mock her, she's contradicted herself a half dozen times in the last few posts alone, it's really tough not to laugh at that. I reckon that if FTK is sincere about her claimed desire for reasonable dialogue, then she'll do as I suggest. Isn't there something in the bible about no man being so wicked a sinner that he cannot find redemption? So come on FTK, like the good christian that you claim to be, allow me my redemption. Engage in reasonable dialogue. Forgive me. Louis -------------- Bye.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:31    Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,10:08) So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc. But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us', even though we have offered to debate them. You make so much sense. Don't you even pull that shit for one second.  You read my post...you get my point.  Grow up.  Seriously.   This has nothing to do with you being "below" them, it has everything to do with your horrific, immature attitude. That attitude + your prominent display of the scarlet A and all your other atheist ranting makes you look like an immature atheist who's raging at theists you don't understand rather than a professional scientist interested in getting to the truth about our origins.   If you want to keep playing bash the creationist at your blog, that's fine by me.  But, don't *ever* expect any one of your opponents to give you the time of day. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:35    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:36) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2008,08:41)   Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:34) Yes, Arden....THE GRAND MAJORITY.  I'm not talking about my specific religious beliefs.  I said that the grand majority of people realize that design is overwhelming apparent.  That has nothing to do with what religious beliefs they hold.  It means that they realize that there is more involved in the origin of life other than purely naturalistic processes. FtK I must have missed it in the pie chart you provided.  Where does it tell us that the grand majority believe in "design"??? Or about their theory of "origins"?  Do you need a reminder about Buddhism? No, I most certainly do not...I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do.READ... I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al.  I said they most certainly believe that there is more to consider in regard to our origins than purely naturalistic causes.  I believe if they clearly understood ID, they would consider it a worthwhile avenue to be explored since ID from the scientific standpoint has absolutely no connection with a specific flavor of religious belief.  It allows us to discuss that supposed "illusion" of design without the religious baggage. Sorry - posting a link to a thread at a conservative christian site that believes in YHVH does not make you knowledgeable of buddhism.  Perhaps you'd like to explain the concept of "no self" or the meaning of "life is suffering".  Perhaps you can explain, as another asked (sorry, saw the question but missed the name) asked as to what deity it is that Buddhists worship?  In all my readings and explorations into eastern religions, and my focus on zen, I've yet to discover that.   In fact, why not quote what the Buddha is reputed to have said when asked about origins and deities? Ignorance is an excuse.  Willful ignorance is a "sin". -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:36    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:27) Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2008,16:20) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:11) FTK Makes perfect sense....if you allow for her belief that a) she makes perfect sense, b) everything she says or everything anyone says that she likes is perfect sense, c) ID is not religious, d) ID is religious, e) we're all elitist bastards persecuting her/creationists, and f) we're all worthless foul-mouthed bastards who are beneath her/creationists. Ummm, did I get that all about right? Do try and be nice, Louis.  Poor FTK just had an EEG and is trying to interpret the results. LOL But I AM trying to be nice. Admittedly FTK is making it difficult not to mock her, she's contradicted herself a half dozen times in the last few posts alone, it's really tough not to laugh at that. I reckon that if FTK is sincere about her claimed desire for reasonable dialogue, then she'll do as I suggest. Isn't there something in the bible about no man being so wicked a sinner that he cannot find redemption? So come on FTK, like the good christian that you claim to be, allow me my redemption. Engage in reasonable dialogue. Forgive me. Louis Right...after your initial post you wrote claiming that you want to have a serious conversation, etc., you turn around and add in one of your following posts how dishonest you believe me to be. I am not dishonest.  I will not attempt a conversation with someone who deems me so.  I have no idea why you would want to continue a conversation with such a "dishonest" person anyway. Like I said, there are folks here that I'd prefer to discuss issues with.  Though that is *extremely* hard to do as I keep getting bombarded by the peanut gallery..which you are the leading voice for. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:38    Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,10:08) So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc. But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us', even though we have offered to debate them. You make so much sense. That makes about as much sense as saying that Behe et al are so much better behaved than you.  Considering what we know of his behavior, you come out far far ahead in that department. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

raguel Posts: 107 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:42    Quote Science is no long a search for the truth about our origins, but rather a search for the best current materialist explanation.  Methodological naturalism was not always forced upon scientists, yet today materialists (who own “science” at the moment) deem it the *only* way to conduct science. ...Science should be the search for a true understanding of the cosmos based on empirical evidence, observation, hypothesis and empirical testing through experiment and observation. It could be that all the science courses I've taken and lab experiments I've done from high school to college have made me dense, but I've seen several IDists/creationists say similar things and I've yet to understand what they are saying. Besides the obvious, that is.

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,10:51    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,10:31) Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,10:08) So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc. But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us', even though we have offered to debate them. You make so much sense. Don't you even pull that shit for one second.  You read my post...you get my point.  Grow up.  Seriously.   This has nothing to do with you being "below" them, it has everything to do with your horrific, immature attitude. That attitude + your prominent display of the scarlet A and all your other atheist ranting makes you look like an immature atheist who's raging at theists you don't understand rather than a professional scientist interested in getting to the truth about our origins.   If you want to keep playing bash the creationist at your blog, that's fine by me.  But, don't *ever* expect any one of your opponents to give you the time of day. So I cant tell someone they are dead wrong about the evolutionary capabilities of HIV-1, even though I am a (relative) expert on HIV-1.  Thats rude. But Behe/Creationists/you can call me a Nazi.  You can say I have no 'morals'.  You can say Im 'immature' and uninterested in finding 'The Truth™', even though Im the one actively researching the place of viruses in the origin of life on this planet, and trying to cure cancer and AIDS 'on the side', while you (and Walt, and Behe) do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life of organisms living on this planet. But *they* 'wont give me the time of day', because Im below them.  And I wont debate them because they are 'below me', even though I have offered to debate them. Thank you-- This is making even more sense now.

Gunthernacus Posts: 235 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:11    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,11:36) I am not dishonest. That is the Liars' Motto, FtK.  You lie about even the most petty things. -------------- Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:13    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:56) Walt Brown on the other hand has *NEVER* *EVAR* displayed the nasty attitude that you do, nor has he slammed atheists or darwinists on any level.  He’s stayed out of the sewer pit we call Internet "debate" which is in actuality a bunch of obsessed people from both sides wanting to get their point in that they are right and the other side is wrong. He's also never attempted to get his ideas taken seriously outside of the small cadre of people who already believe in creationism. He's also never attempted to publish, to my knowledge, in a technical journal where his ideas could be subjected to public scrutiny. He's never crept outside his little safety zone with his rules about how he'll engage critics. Quote actuality a bunch of obsessed people from both sides wanting to get their point in that they are right and the other side is wrong Speak for yourself. The fact of the matter is that creationism/intelligent design is a mere footnote in the river of scientific discovery that's been going on since religion was taken out of the picture of science. Deal with it. Walt's had 8 editions of his book out. Do you really think that anyone ever anywhere in the world will suddenly go "hey, this explains everything so much better then the current explanation"? Will a revolution sweep across geology because of Walt's work? No, it won't. Never, ever ever. And you know why? His ideas have already been assessed, proved as physically impossible and discarded as yet another useless distraction on the road to reality. A reality which you'll never understand. -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:24    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:56) That crap you pulled on your blog about Behe was so unprofessional it was appalling....demanding that he respond to you when he hadn’t responded to anyone’s rebuttals of his book yet.   He still hasn't responded (to anyone) in any substantive way. Any idea why his "blog" on Amazon has the comments turned off for almost all of his posts?  Or why, when he accidentally left comments on for one of those posts, he got nailed immediately for his lies, omissions, errors, and other standard IDC tactics? Behe and Brown may both be nice guys, and would never use the words that you do in a debate. But if they want to be considered scientists like ERV, none of that stuff matters. What matters is engaging others on the merit of your ideas, and not hiding behind some ridiculous wall complaining about how mean people can be. Ideas matter. But you don't give a FF about that either, do you? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:31    Quote So I cant tell someone they are dead wrong about the evolutionary capabilities of HIV-1, even though I am a (relative) expert on HIV-1.  Thats rude. Abbie.  Shut up and pay attention.  I *never* said you can't tell someone you believe them to be dead wrong about the evolutionary capabilities of HIV.  Of course you can...in fact it is *your job* to do so.  Behe did acknowledge and comment about your concerns, but I certainly don't blame him for not agreeing to debate you on the issue further.  My gosh, you acted like a screeching loon from your "blag", and you've never changed your demeanor.  How the hell would one have a meaningful debate with you if you're blathering on about cottage cheese dripping pussies at the drop of a hat?       Quote But Behe/Creationists/you can call me a Nazi.  You can say I have no 'morals'.  You can say Im 'immature' and uninterested in finding 'The Truth™', even though Im the one actively researching the place of viruses in the origin of life on this planet, and trying to cure cancer and AIDS 'on the side', while you (and Walt, and Behe) do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life of organisms living on this planet. 1.  *I've* never called you a Nazi, and if you're refering to the Expelled video, then you are seriously conflating your own personal emotions about the connection between things like eugentics, etc. with your position on evolution today. 2.  You are most certainly immature, and as I said, you display the attitude that I've seen from atheists who have just lost their faith.  They're out on a mission to battle those evil people who led them to believe in a higher power.  From what I understand you've been an atheist for some time now, so mature up, sister.  Get over yourself and focus on the science rather than your intense dislike for anything religious. 3.  I did *not* say you weren't interested in getting to the truth about our origins.  What I did said was that by the attitude you display at your blog, you seem much more focused on creationist bashing than seeking to reach out and work positively to help solve the conflicts.  You cause more harm than good by acting like an ass whenever you disagree with someone. 3.  Kudos to you for picking the avenue of study that you did.  I'm very proud of you for that...with all sincerity.  You have a job that is extremely beneficial to society, and I swear to God I'd love for you to be the one who comes up with a cure for aids all by your little self.  I could look back and say, I knew that chick in the day.  I have a cousin who died of aids and I very much look forward to the day when we can put this horrific disease behind us. 4.  But, please note that you have absolutely *no right* to make a statement like this..."you (and Walt, and Behe) do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life of organisms living on this planet."  You have absolutely *NO* idea what anyone from my side might be doing to help improve the quality of life for organisms on this planet.  My church alone provides large amounts of money and time helping others in their community and abroad, and I donate to their efforts.  There are many other ways in which I've donated my money into cancer research etc..  There are endless ways in which to help improve the quality of life without having to sit behind a microscope.  You have no idea what Behe and Brown have done in this respect or how their scientific work may play into this effort. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:37    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2008,11:24) Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:56) That crap you pulled on your blog about Behe was so unprofessional it was appalling....demanding that he respond to you when he hadn’t responded to anyone’s rebuttals of his book yet.   He still hasn't responded (to anyone) in any substantive way. Any idea why his "blog" on Amazon has the comments turned off for almost all of his posts?  Or why, when he accidentally left comments on for one of those posts, he got nailed immediately for his lies, omissions, errors, and other standard IDC tactics? Behe and Brown may both be nice guys, and would never use the words that you do in a debate. But if they want to be considered scientists like ERV, none of that stuff matters. What matters is engaging others on the merit of your ideas, and not hiding behind some ridiculous wall complaining about how mean people can be. Ideas matter. But you don't give a FF about that either, do you? Dude, they've agreed to many debates, in fact they beg for them.  But, Abbie's entirely a different story for reasons that should be obvious to most folks. They're debating right now at opposing views.  Why the hell didn't NSCE throw some science in there?  Why didn't they use their noggins and consult with Abbie and put forth a post with respect to some of Behe's views?   What Behe and others probably won't do....and I DON'T BLAME THEM, is to open up comments to blow hards like yourself.  That turns the conversation into a flame war causing more grief than education.  It furthers the culture war by leaps and bounds.  There has to be some rules to follow in regard to debate rather than a free for all circle jerk. I know you folks are more comfortable in gang warfare, but that is not the way to go about it. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:41    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,16:36) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:27)   Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2008,16:20)   Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,10:11) FTK Makes perfect sense....if you allow for her belief that a) she makes perfect sense, b) everything she says or everything anyone says that she likes is perfect sense, c) ID is not religious, d) ID is religious, e) we're all elitist bastards persecuting her/creationists, and f) we're all worthless foul-mouthed bastards who are beneath her/creationists. Ummm, did I get that all about right? Do try and be nice, Louis.  Poor FTK just had an EEG and is trying to interpret the results. LOL But I AM trying to be nice. Admittedly FTK is making it difficult not to mock her, she's contradicted herself a half dozen times in the last few posts alone, it's really tough not to laugh at that. I reckon that if FTK is sincere about her claimed desire for reasonable dialogue, then she'll do as I suggest. Isn't there something in the bible about no man being so wicked a sinner that he cannot find redemption? So come on FTK, like the good christian that you claim to be, allow me my redemption. Engage in reasonable dialogue. Forgive me. Louis Right...after your initial post you wrote claiming that you want to have a serious conversation, etc., you turn around and add in one of your following posts how dishonest you believe me to be. I am not dishonest.  I will not attempt a conversation with someone who deems me so.  I have no idea why you would want to continue a conversation with such a "dishonest" person anyway. Like I said, there are folks here that I'd prefer to discuss issues with.  Though that is *extremely* hard to do as I keep getting bombarded by the peanut gallery..which you are the leading voice for. Do you know what intellectual dishonesty is FTK? I don't think you are dishonest, full stop, across the board, that's it forever and ever, I think you can be intellectually dishonest. There's a difference. For example let's take one reasonable point: you repeately claim "seeing design in nature" is not about religion, and yet you repeatedly refer in the last few posts to a diagram where you claim that only the non-religious people don't "see design in nature". So according to you only religious people "see design in nature" the rest of us are biased/conspiring/deluded somehow (btw, I'm, happy to be "wrong", but mere wrongness is never enough for you, it has to be persecution). That aside, it is YOU that is both correlating religion and "seeing design in nature" and claiming that "seeing design in nature" is not about religion. Both cannot be the case! The fact that you've had this explained to you, and things very much like it, several times speaks volumes. It also speaks volumes that you have this explained to you and ignore those explanations only to come back and repeat the same contradictory drivel as if it were never refuted. Your behaviour in this manner is atrociously bad, regardless of how bad or otherwise anyone else's is. Again, your propensity to see everyone that disagrees with you as an enemy hell bent on persecuting you in some fashion makes it practically impossible to discuss anything with you. So yet again I'll try to offer you a way out. Let's do an experiment, just you and me. I'll forget I've ever met you if you forget you've ever met me. We start afresh, a clean slate, free from history. I can do it, can you? This is what I am proposing. You want rational conversation, I'm offering it to you on a plate. Everything that's past is past, only a beautiful future exists. Let bygones be bygones etc. In the interest of our new start answer those two simple questions. Louis P.S. The reason I want to have a conversation with you FTK is I think you can change. Unlike some other people I don't think you are, or anyone is, unremittingly stupid and intellectually dishonest. I think you can learn to have the conversations you claim to desire. First you've got to realise that, despite a lot of pretty good mocking of you, people aren't out to get you. Mockery =/= hatred. Second you have to admit the possibility you could be wrong. And third you've got to engage in a discussion in good faith. If you cannot do that then I'm afraid all those people who think you ARE unchangeably stupid and intellectually dishonest will be proven right. What you have done since the very first day you came here is prove them right. It's up to you to prove them wrong and I am giving you that chance. Whether or not you take it is up to you. Let's be honest, if I have the agenda you seem to think I have (which I don't) you refusing my offer repeatedly makes my point for me. Try it, what have you got to lose? Edited for tag error -------------- Bye.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:52    Ftk - Tom Ames, your current favorite discussant with whom you don't discuss anything, earlier asked whether you believe that human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Surely you don't need to rush off and research that question before responding. This is a question that concerns relatively recent events (5-7 million years) that can be answered without first resolving OOL issues, or polling the spiritual beliefs of the entire planet. It is empirically resolvable without resort to philosophical filler and indeed has been long resolved beyond a shred of rational doubt. It's a good question not only because it has bearing upon Tom's earlier points, but also because it is Exhibit A. among those things we know that creationists are desperate not to know. So, what say ye? -------------- 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: Sep. 24 2008,12:01    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,11:37) What Behe and others probably won't do....and I DON'T BLAME THEM, is to open up comments to blow hards like yourself.  That turns the conversation into a flame war causing more grief than education.  It furthers the culture war by leaps and bounds.  There has to be some rules to follow in regard to debate rather than a free for all circle jerk. It's odd then how they also refuse to publish their work in venues were other professional scientists can comment on their work and point out holes where seen. There would be no "flame war", no "more grief then education", just the everyday back and forth of professionals arguing their case based upon the best evidence that they can provide. But to Behe etc even do that? It seems to me that they prefer to publish books that are immune from other professionals criticism, at least in the book itself. Behe can publish and his readers need never know every substantial idea in his book has been proven wrong. Not only that, but I and others have documented how the small circle of ID proponents are happy to review, recommend and give 9/10 marks to each others books. I can find some links if you like. Plus of course Dembski reviewing his own book on Amazon(IIRC) was a classic. So, to be blunt, the phrase "circle jerk" is more apt for the small group of ID proponents in their incestuous relationships where they slap each other on the back and promote each others books irrespective of their merit.   Quote There has to be some rules to follow Quite. How to publish your paper How to write your paper Peer Review Now why don't Behe, Dembski etc follow those rules, that every other scientist with something to say appears to manage. I've already shown how you were mistaken about the reason ID cannot be peer-reviewed by showing you the "List of peer-reviewed" papers that it is claimed to support ID. So there are the rules. Perhaps you can let Behe know and he can stop publishing books and write a paper and perhaps get wider acceptance for his ideas? -------------- 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

Pages: (341) < ... 314 315 316 317 318 [319] 320 321 322 323 324 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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