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) < ... 284 285 286 287 288 [289] 290 291 292 293 294 ... >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,22:16    Quote (Nerull @ July 14 2008,22:08) Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,22:27) Here’s what really cracks me up....the actual  bone fragments that you science dudes get so worked up about.  See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone from the article Bill linked to in regard to the recovered fossils that “may” prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus . Tikky... Austa... It’s no wonder we unscientific folks think you’re all completely nuts.  We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake.  But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes. From what I understand, Shubin made several trips to a few places where he thought he should find these transitionals, but had no luck.  If I remember correctly from the book (I read it at Barnes & Nobles in two different visits), he said that they almost gave up hope and that they were afraid they wouldn’t get funding for further trips like this.  (If I’m wrong about this I’m sure someone will correct me...like I said, I don’t have the book and I can’t quite remember how the story went.)   But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find, which looks like a freaking fish to me.  So, they find some little bone on this sucker that they think served as a intermediate wrist bone.  What the heck does that really mean?  There are other walking fish...I have no idea what makes this one bone fragment so unique that it just *has* to be an intermediate between fish and terapods.  I guess because this one was found in exactly the “right place”. And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone.  Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.   W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.   Makes you wonder what scientists would find if they went gung ho digging in the wrong places.  Honest to God, when I did a little research earlier this year and found out how few ape to human transitional bone fragments we actually have, I was stunned that scientists actually believe this crap.   But, yes, I’m well aware that you have to be a genius mad scientist to understand how precious and meaningful these minute bone fragments really are. I guess I do have to remind myself, though, that you are the same folks who seem to think everything we observe in nature arose from a lucky little blob.  Faith is a wonderful thing, eh? Oh, and have fun with this oldie but goody as well [Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media Goes Nuts   04/06/2006 ]. Luvs, hugs and kisses, folks! PS to blipey the troll:  Honey, it seems to me that for a guy who has such a long list of questions he’s waiting for me to answer, he would at least set a good example and answer the one question that I asked you months ago on the UD thread.  Heck it’s been so long I don’t even remember what it was or where it is.  I’m sure you recall that conversation though. Translation: Crap, I screwed up! Quick, blather on and say the dumbest thing I can think up so everyone will be distracted and not point out how stupid Luskin is! Creobotism at its worst: Notpology. -------------- "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

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,23:03    Is there a medical condition of stupidity? FtK has it. Hope it's not catching.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,23:52    Quote Hope it's not catching. Nah, you can’t catch shit over the Internet.  You’re good. Hey, I keep meaning to ask you.... Aren’t you a  short story contributor in this book? I accidentally ran across Dooce’s blog a while back and she was advertising that book, and linked to what I think was your blog (Twelve to Two Fondue).  If I remember correctly from kcfs, you’re that “Bill”. Or, maybe I’m completely wrong.  Just curious.  I haven’t read the book, but I was just thinking it was a small world since I just stumbled upon one blog and found out that someone else I know from another forum was contributing to that blogger’s recently released book. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,23:54    Crap... This book. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,01:01    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,19:59) If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again. I'm not impressed. But even if his credentials were impressive, why would they trump the far more impressive credentials of those you claim are wrong? What did Jesus Christ say about hypocrisy, FTK? According to the Bible didn't He say infinitely more against hypocrisy than He did against abortion or homosexuality? Why do you ignore the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ when they don't fit with your right-wing political goals?

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,01:01    Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,19:27) See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone... But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find...  W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. There's something Freudian about Ftk's misspellings.   -------------- 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: July 15 2008,01:26    Quote I'm not impressed. But even if his credentials were impressive, why would they trump the far more impressive credentials of those you claim are wrong? Um...I've never said he was right or that his credentials trump all other evolutionary scientists.  I've only said that I find his theories "interesting" or "compelling".   Quote What did Jesus Christ say about hypocrisy, FTK? He doesn't like it? Quote According to the Bible didn't He say infinitely more against hypocrisy than He did against abortion or homosexuality? Yes? Quote Why do you ignore the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ when they don't fit with your right-wing political goals? Um...well, I didn't realize I was being hypocritical merely because I find Brown's theories interesting.  Honestly, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up his theory.  The tactic that you'll find among hardened evolutionists is to conflate ID with creation science.  Then they move right into bad mouthing the bible.  That way, they think they can convince everyone that ID=religion. That's their right, but discussing Brown's theories doesn't really have anything to do with the consideration of *ID* in public school science classes. See, if they keep to the point....which is ID, they lose.  So they go ballistic about Noah's ark, etc. in an attempt to pull the conversation toward religion and the bible.   I'll do whatever it takes to insure that religion is not taught in the public schools because I've had first hand experience with how that works.   So, you and your friends here can keep on talking about creation science, but I won't be including myself in that conversation.  I'm sympathetic to creation science, but I don't want it in the public schools for obvious reasons. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,01:59    Quote (Ftk @ July 15 2008,01:26)   Quote I'm not impressed. But even if his credentials were impressive, why would they trump the far more impressive credentials of those you claim are wrong? Um...I've never said he was right or that his credentials trump all other evolutionary scientists. Um...I never claimed that you SAID anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out that your touting of his credentials is hypocritical, because we all know you'll never tout the credentials of those with whom you disagree. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Is there anything you can address straight up, without moving the goalposts? Quote I've only said that I find his theories "interesting" or "compelling". No, you've also touted his credentials. That's hypocritical.   Quote Quote What did Jesus Christ say about hypocrisy, FTK? He doesn't like it? Quote According to the Bible didn't He say infinitely more against hypocrisy than He did against abortion or homosexuality? Yes? So why are you evasive when you are questioned about your hypocrisy? Quote Quote Why do you ignore the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ when they don't fit with your right-wing political goals? Um...well, I didn't realize I was being hypocritical merely because I find Brown's theories interesting. I didn't claim that, so quit lying. You were being hypocritical because you were touting his credentials instead of addressing the content of his claims. Aren't those goalposts getting heavy? Quote Honestly,... I can't remember anything you've written here that would justify the use of that adverb. Quote I'm not the one who keeps bringing up his theory. I was bringing up your rank hypocrisy in touting credentials, remember? Quote The tactic that you'll find among hardened evolutionists is to conflate ID with creation science. That's not a tactic, it's a fact. It's even been demonstrated in court. Quote Then they move right into bad mouthing the bible. Well, I was citing the Bible's admonitions against hypocrisy. What does that make me? Quote That way, they think they can convince everyone that ID=religion. Now you claim to know what others THINK? How arrogant can you get? Quote That's their right, but discussing Brown's theories doesn't really have anything to do with the consideration of *ID* in public school science classes. Brown doesn't have any theories. None of his hypotheses have a long record of successful predictions. How many of Brown's hypotheses has Brown tested, and if the answer is zero, what does that say about his faith? Quote See, if they keep to the point....which is ID, they lose. How so? Because of all them ID experiments and observations being published in the primary literature? Quote So, you and your friends here can keep on talking about creation science, but I won't be including myself in that conversation... Um...I was talking about your rank hypocrisy in touting credentials when you obviously don't give half a shit about the credentials of those with whom you disagree. That's dishonest, and you know it.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,02:12    Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,21:27) Here’s what really cracks me up....the actual  bone fragments that you science dudes get so worked up about. I'm a molecular biologist (unlike your hero, Behe, who you falsely claimed was a molecular biologist), and I get more worked up about sequences. I predict that you're neither bright enough nor interested enough to learn how to BLAST protein sequences that are all freely available on the web for you to investigate. Quote See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone from the article Bill linked to in regard to the recovered fossils that “may” prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus . What exactly does that last prepositional phrase mean? You're not making any sense at all. What do you see when you look at the wrist bones of Tikky, FTK? Quote It’s no wonder we unscientific folks think you’re all completely nuts. That's because you can't be bothered to read what we actually write, as you demonstrate below. Quote We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake. And for Christ's sake, we're not supposed to bear false witness, but you do that all the time: Quote But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes. We didn't evolve FROM apes, you fool, we ARE apes. Also, in science, nothing is ever considered to be proven, so that's a second example of you violating the Ninth Commandment. Quote Honest to God,... More taking of His name in vain, to support a lie: Quote when I did a little research earlier this year and found out how few ape to human transitional bone fragments we actually have, I was stunned that scientists actually believe this crap. How would you interpret the sequence evidence, then? The sequences and the tools to analyze them are freely available to YOU, but you are either too stupid or too scared to take advantage of that.  What does "eponymous" mean, and have you explained it to the illiterate Casey Luskin yet?

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,02:21    I am confused, but Ftk is not? Well, then she might perhaps help clear my confusion, even if she can't help herself: What kind of creationism is ID? Is it Paley reboxed, Dembski , Salvador, or Behe's God of the Bible? I am confused - did God do it, or are we talking aliens from outer space? If it is not creationism, what is it then? I want to know, I do not understand! Have anybody written a book presenting the solution to the riddle? The Discovery Institute? Why are all the I-ists beating around the bush? What do they know? How many kinds of ID are there? Who is the designer? Was there more than one? Is the designer dead or is he/they still alive? Is all of the evidence for evolution irrelevant? Help!!! If Ftk is sooo interested and fascinated with things she understand nothing of, why doesn't she buy the book(s) and do a thorough study instead of dragging her groundbreaking discovery here? So she found a book interesting. Hint Edit: typos. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,02:51    Quote We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake.  But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes. Yeah, but gigatons of rocks getting launched at over escape velocity by the flood is totally plausible. Have you ever watched a Shuttle launch FTK ? See how much energy goes into putting a measly 100 tons into low earth orbit ? How we burn almost 2000 tons of the most energetic fuels we can make to get there ? Now the asteroid belt is estimated to mass at least 3x10^21 kg (3,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons if I counted right). Think about how much energy you need to get that all going, oh, twice as fast as the Shuttle. If you turned all the oceans to rocket fuel, you'd still be short by a couple orders of magnitude. Your buddy Walt claims water squirting out of holes in the ground did this. It should be obvious that this is complete and utter horseshit. It's batshit crazy, not "compelling" or "interesting" except as a psychological curiosity.             Quote Honestly, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up his theory. Seems you thought pretty highly of him. In any case, that's beside the point. You were repeatedly shown the obvious fact that he's a fraud. The fact that you were unable to recognize that speaks volumes as to your ability to distinguish real science from bullshit. The fact that you used his credentials to deny his obvious nuttiness, while dismissing those of real scientists is hypocritical. This is what The Kids call Epic Fail.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,05:00    Ftk: What do you actually know about biological anthropology? What do you know about what those fossils mean?

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,05:05    NEWSFLASH!!  Photographic evidence of Casey Luskin in action!!  Story at 11:00!!!

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,06:59    Quote (Ftk @ July 15 2008,01:26) Quote I'm not impressed. But even if his credentials were impressive, why would they trump the far more impressive credentials of those you claim are wrong? Um...I've never said he was right or that his credentials trump all other evolutionary scientists.  I've only said that I find his theories "interesting" or "compelling".   Quote What did Jesus Christ say about hypocrisy, FTK? He doesn't like it? Quote According to the Bible didn't He say infinitely more against hypocrisy than He did against abortion or homosexuality? Yes? Quote Why do you ignore the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ when they don't fit with your right-wing political goals? Um...well, I didn't realize I was being hypocritical merely because I find Brown's theories interesting.  Honestly, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up his theory.  The tactic that you'll find among hardened evolutionists is to conflate ID with creation science.  Then they move right into bad mouthing the bible.  That way, they think they can convince everyone that ID=religion. That's their right, but discussing Brown's theories doesn't really have anything to do with the consideration of *ID* in public school science classes. See, if they keep to the point....which is ID, they lose.  So they go ballistic about Noah's ark, etc. in an attempt to pull the conversation toward religion and the bible.   I'll do whatever it takes to insure that religion is not taught in the public schools because I've had first hand experience with how that works.   So, you and your friends here can keep on talking about creation science, but I won't be including myself in that conversation.  I'm sympathetic to creation science, but I don't want it in the public schools for obvious reasons. Hey, FTK... you're on UD, and the Uncommonly Dense Thread. You know that the latter is reaching its 1000th page. That represents all the discussion of Dembski and co's public escapades over two and a half years. That's an awful lot of opportunity for ID science to get done there. I mean, Tiktaalik was discovered DURING that time. Did you ever see any of it? On either thread? Any new ID science coming up, being discussed, being picked to death (as happens in science, and as would certainly happen on the Uncommonly Dense Thread)? Did the Explanatory Filter ever get tested during that time? Did anyone try to measure CSI? I mean, seriously, I'm running out of questions to ask here, because these buzzwords are ALL THERE HAVE EVER BEEN. But let's not forget what we have seen on the premier ID blog which is about the sciency science of ID. We now know that there are at least 12 things religion predicts. We know that ID lets you keep your faith if you're worried about evolution (as per the green buttocks book.) We know that it pays lots of money to go to events and teach how much atheism sucks. We know that evolution is an assault on faith and that Hitler used it to kill the Jews. (Ironically, we also have by Dembski's admission that eugenics falls under ID, but everyone forgot it when Expelled came out.) I'm sure you're also on UD for entirely unreligious reasons, FTK. Given that all this happens in the years following the Dover trial, where it was shown that 'creation science' was replaced with 'intelligent design' as if the two were synonymous (that wasn't a legal trick - they actually did it), and that no change has occurred (again, if you heard any ID science discussed in the meantime, do tell), why would anyone not believe this was a religious scam?

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,07:03    Quote (Assassinator @ July 15 2008,05:00) Ftk: What do you actually know about biological anthropology? What do you know about what those fossils mean? Indeed. Do you actually know any paleontologists? Do you not realize that when they examine fossils they are comparing them to what they already know from many others? To think that you can judge a fossil's features for yourself is the height of arrogance. That you would allow Luskin to do so unchallenged is the height of gullibility. * edited because I can

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,07:06    So, here is what trickled out when an article prompted Ftk to "think again": Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,22:27) And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone.  Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.   W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. You should rest now, Ftk. -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,07:15    Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,21:27) But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find, which looks like a freaking fish to me.  So, they find some little bone on this sucker that they think served as a intermediate wrist bone.  What the heck does that really mean?  There are other walking fish...I have no idea what makes this one bone fragment so unique that it just *has* to be an intermediate between fish and terapods.  I guess because this one was found in exactly the “right place”. Everything looks like a freaking fish to a piranha. You'd really like to believe that the entire phylogenetic sequence from fish to you depends on interpretation of the two fossils pictured in your comment. This conveniently ignores things like all the other fossils, biochemistry, developmental biology, molecular biology, genomics, geology, and a whole host of sciencey stuff that you really don't want to understand. And no, I am not saying that you have to be a genius to understand it. But you do have to look at the evidence with an open mind, and you do have to be able to change your perspective if new data become available. You are incapable of both. Let's just say that it is a good thing that you have a lawyer to explain the science to you. He can put it at just the right level so that both of you feel like you understand it all. And then both of you can get pwned on various blogs. Oh, BTW, just in case you were hoping I'd forgotten your inability to defend your opinions about common design and common descent, here's the link, again. -------------- 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

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,07:24    Yes, FtK, since you asked, I contributed the piece to Dooce's book. Ironically, I wrote it for the kids. You should read it, FtK.  It's a good book. Also, I recommend at least the first few chapters of Shubin's book where he describes his five summers prospecting for fossils in the arctic.  Five years of looking to find Tiktaalik.  That's what real scientists do.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,08:48    Quote But you do have to look at the evidence with an open mind, I may not have Ftk's magic way with words so my attempt may not quite match what she would scream at the top of her web-voice, but: "Why, I am as open minded as can be, heck, I even believe in common design! Which of you morons can match that?" And so forth... -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,08:55    Ftk, I looked and can't find them--nor can I remember them.  If you'd like to restate your questions, I'll give them slightly more consideration than you give yours (that'll be about a 1 on a ten point scale).  I may even answer them. What do you want to know? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,12:45    Here you go, Ftk; I found them.  It wasn't one question you asked, but five.  Here's my best effort at answering.  I can't find the thread where you asked them, so I'm unsure of the context.  Because of this, I am using the following assumptions: by "pilum" you mean "pilus" (the former being a Roman spear and the later being a hairlike filament on a bacterium), and when you say "pilum lost its hair-like filament" you mean "some structure lost its pilus". 1.  Precisely which pilum and which type-three secretory system [did Klebba] he have in mind? Because I've lost the thread, I'm not sure.  The rest of your questions don't really hinge on exact pilus or TTSS, so I don't think this matters a whole lot. 2.  How exactly did a pilum shed its hair-like filament in becoming a type-three secretory system (last I looked, type-three secretory systems are microsyringes that do not have hair-like filaments)? We probably will never know exactly how the first flagellum to lose a pilus actually lost it.  That doesn't mean we don't know how a bacterium can lose a pilus.  We even have papers which tell us exactly what mutations occur to cause loss of pili.  I'll quote the important bit for you:   Quote A mutation of PapA Gly-7 to Ile-7 resulted in unpiliated bacteria, as did mutation of Gly-15 to Trp-15, or deletion of residues 3–9 (data not shown). You'll notice that there is not just one course of mutation that might be used, but several different ones!  That's exciting and kind of goes counter to the ID communities insistence on one-path-big-number math, don't you think? 3.  What new genes need to be added to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? I've tried to find the genetic breakdown of a pilus and a TTSS, but without going down to the university library I've found it difficult.  These things have been sequenced though.  For example, here's the complete breakdown of TTSS proteins and the sequences 4.  What old genes need to be lost to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? See last answer. 5.  In the evolution from the pilum to the type-three secretory system, how many intermediate systems whose functions were neither that of a pilum nor that of a type-three secretory system were there? We don't know.  As shown above by the multiple options for an unpiliated bacterium, there could be many possible paths.  Each path would most likely have a different number of steps.  It does not matter how many intermediate steps there were, only that he first step WAS NOT a TTSS and that the last step WAS a TTSS.  As for the steps in between?  As long as they were functional in some way, ANY way, the process of evolution is viable. In my notes on this answer, I have written down Behe and IC.  I am assuming we were discussing IC at the time you asked me these questions.  The phrasing of your questions shows your inability to grasp Behe's argument and certainly your ability to then defend or critique it. Your second question asks how something "exactly" happened.  IC rests not upon "exactly" but upon "impossibility".  It only needs to be shown that something is possible to refute it. Your last question amplifies your erroneous thinking on IC.  Whether a thing takes 23 steps or 5,230 steps is immaterial to IC.  IC posits that a thing can never, under any circumstances, occur. There you go.  You've asked an actor to explain biology to you instead of one of the many experts on this board.  I'm sure they'll correct my mistakes and would be happy to answer any questions you have of them.  That is assuming, of course, that you're actually interested in learning anything. Now, about your questions.  They're all very much easier than the five you asked me.  Why not take a crack at them?  Surprise us. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,12:49    Quote (blipey @ July 15 2008,12:45) Now, about your questions.  They're all very much easier than the five you asked me.  Why not take a crack at them?  Surprise us. Blipey - Don't hold your breath - It will never happen.  I think she's just clowning around. Ba Dum- CHING ps - For an actor you do science pretty damn good! pps:  I don't think we're gonna make to KC this summer - the farthest west will be St. Louis. But didn't Amadan say he was driving up the left coast pretty soon? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,15:13    And here they are, for easy reference: Quote 1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?   NO 2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?   No, I believe they would....that is why I was giving them the warning that someone may be listing personal information about me. 3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?   I have not checked into that so I do not know.  I would assume that most do not. 4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?   I believe I answered that on this page or the last page.  checking the previous 3 pages, there is no answer from Ftk as regards this question.  There are however, many complaints about having to answer questions and the ridiculous expectations of such. –blipey 5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?   !!! This question is ridiculous.  Obviously, he wouldn't, and I'd have to ask Behe if he was every allowed to go through every book and article one by one and make two separate piles of what he had and had not read.  But, I tried desperately to explain in an earlier discussion that just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered nor should they be regarded as "fact". I’m counting this one as answered because of the first sentence “obviously, he wouldn’t”.  That being said, the commentary after that phrase proves that she’ll never be able to answer question 6.  perhaps this is why she stopped answering questions. –blipey 6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion? 7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop? 8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it? 9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science? 10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example? 11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE? 11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is? 12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks? 12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"? 13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID? 14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years? 15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published? 16. How? 17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction? 18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere. 19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita? 20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008? Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to? 21. What are IDers doing to garner respect? 22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference? 23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book? 24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down? 25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC, answer provided for Ftk by blipey 26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC, answer provided by blipey 27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000, answer provided by blipey 28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people? 29. Is Dembski a creationist? 30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage? 31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia? 32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?  yes 33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police? 34. Are those same people Baptist? 35. What does this mean? 36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV? 37. Do you think that gravity is “just a theory” and therefore should be “taught critically” (to use the ID phrase)? 38. If not, what makes the details we don’t know about gravity different from the details we don’t know about evolution? 39. Do you believe Common Descent = Common Design? 40. Do you believe that Macroevolution = (not observed so did not happen)? 41. Despite the documented evidence, do you believe that macroevolution is based solely on historical inference? 42. Can you define macroevolution (in your own words)? 43. What evidence would confirm this? 44. Did God just make it look like the horse evolved, but in fact tinkered with the design along the way? 45.  Is the horse the only thing that evolved, but everything else is designed? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,15:53    My favorite bit is the idea that a transitional fossil shouldn't look similar to the things it is a transition between. Because that makes loads of sense. I suppose, to FTKs muddled brain, a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods should look like a giant Alien Queen, not like something kinda in between fish and tetrapods. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,16:41    Quote (Nerull @ July 15 2008,15:53) My favorite bit is the idea that a transitional fossil shouldn't look similar to the things it is a transition between. Because that makes loads of sense. I suppose, to FTKs muddled brain, a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods should look like a giant Alien Queen, not like something kinda in between fish and tetrapods. I'm very tempted to add that to the list.  I like the way you stated it.  It's exactly these sort of things make the Ftks of the world look stupid to the rest of the world--even those people who only check up on this sort of thing when the School Board makes the news. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,17:56    Not sure where to put this, and I can't start new topics yet, so I'll stick it here. Maybe FTK can take a stab at explaining what ID theory can contribute to this. John Hawks (one of my all time favorite bloggers) has an extensive post that describes real world design detection in archeology. Pigment use and symbolic behavior in the Neandertals Some points of note: The proposed designer is explicitly identified. Ascribing design to the artifacts is done by identifying, analyzing and reproducing the methods the designers might have used, along with demonstrating that naturally modified items of the same composition do not share the same characteristics. Multiple independent lines of evidence support the assertion that the artifacts are designed. Not only are the modifications identified as non-natural, uses are proposed and identified. Abstract concepts like CSI or the "information content" of designed artifacts are not used. So FTK: ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,18:09    Ooooh!  That is good, Reed.  It really does deserve its own thread, just so it doesn't get lost. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,18:26    many moons ago, when i stumbled across this forum, i thought that "ftk" stood for "fuck the knowledge". i may not be wrong.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,18:34    Quote (rhmc @ July 15 2008,18:26) many moons ago, when i stumbled across this forum, i thought that "ftk" stood for "fuck the knowledge". i may not be wrong. No comment.

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,18:43    Quote (rhmc @ July 15 2008,18:26) many moons ago, when i stumbled across this forum, i thought that "ftk" stood for "fuck the knowledge". i may not be wrong. I'd say "Faith That Kills", myself. -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Pages: (341) < ... 284 285 286 287 288 [289] 290 291 292 293 294 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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