RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,07:30   

I can't wait for dSS to skewer Gerald Schroeder for us
Go Dave ....hehhehehehehehe

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Dante



Posts: 61
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:14   

Quote
Then there was Adolf Hitler, who murdered an estimated 12 million, and built his pagan ideology on the philosophies of eugenics, a creation of Darwinism


I thought he was doing God's work... I mean, it even says that in Mein Kampf. Guess he's just a Darwinian Fundamentalist.

--------------
Dembski said it, I laughed at it, that settles it!

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:24   

Quote (Dante @ May 14 2006,13:14)
Quote
Then there was Adolf Hitler, who murdered an estimated 12 million, and built his pagan ideology on the philosophies of eugenics, a creation of Darwinism


I thought he was doing God's work... I mean, it even says that in Mein Kampf. Guess he's just a Darwinian Fundamentalist.

As I learned from Josh Bozeman, the fundie way of getting around the copious evidence linking the Nazis and Hitler to Christianity is to say that Hitler & the Nazis 'couldn't possibly' have been Christians, given all the bad stuff they did, and so therefore they weren't Christians. So therefore, this proves that the Nazis were all atheists. Viola!

So in other words, they argue history the exact same way they argue biology.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:52   

Quote (Dante @ May 14 2006,13:14)
Quote
Then there was Adolf Hitler, who murdered an estimated 12 million, and built his pagan ideology on the philosophies of eugenics, a creation of Darwinism


I thought he was doing God's work... I mean, it even says that in Mein Kampf. Guess he's just a Darwinian Fundamentalist.

Of course, and Hernando Cortez was another Darwinian fanatic.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:55   

No, I'll take back that 'every nutjob in the country' taunt not even Gerald Schroeder is in little willy's category. B is way out on his own , I've just held my nose long enough to read
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1117
mind blowing .....the man is certifiable, although he does tickle up the YECers in a very strange way. By squirming around with such useless words as noetic and theodicy.
In short a justification for no-ethic theo-idiocy, take note no fact zone man.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,09:54   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2006,11:19)
Note to Dave2lot: Explain to me again how a man-made lake is not a reservoir.

Sorry.

A reservoir means you are reserving/storing the water (or whatever) to be used for drinking or some other purpose besides just being a lake. So if you have a man-made lake, but don't use the water as anything but a lake, then it wouldn't be considered a reservoir. A natural body of water can also be a reservoir if the water is used and regulated.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:19   

Quote
Our sun is a type G main sequence star with abundant heavy elements. Heavy elements are created in supernova explosions. Thus our sun must have been preceded by one or more generations of giant stars that formed, burned up their hydrogen fuel, and went out in a supernova explosion that formed and scattered heavy elements that later generation stars can incorporate when they form out of condensing gas clouds. Stellar evolution is fairly well understood and we can observe in real time all kinds of stars in all stages of their life cycles. It is impossible for our sun to have formed and matured to its current state in any kind of scale measured in thousands of years. The earth is billions of years of old. Get used to it. -ds

WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution? The conclusions are drawn in very similar manners. He's got no problem with a big bang even though it's a huge extrapolation from observation. There is a fringe group of physicists who doubt the BB and use the same type of argumentation against it that the creationists use against evolution.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

 
Quote
Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply".

This is the same kind of reasoning that creationists use. I too don't think the BB or inflation are explanations set in stone. They just happen to be the best explanations we have of what we observe, just like the epicycles of ancient cosmology. Sure there are many gaps in the theory, just like there are gaps in evolutionary theory, but Dave accepts them wholeheartedly and wholeheartedly rejects the theory of evolution. WHY?

 
Quote
Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.

Sound familiar?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:53   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:02   

Quote
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?
I think for creationists there is a point where the level of what God did and did not do is fixed in their mind. This is why you get all sorts of different levels of creationists. The only other reason I can come up with is that stars are big and cells are small.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:15   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 14 2006,16:02)
Quote
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?
I think for creationists there is a point where the level of what God did and did not do is fixed in their mind. This is why you get all sorts of different levels of creationists. The only other reason I can come up with is that stars are big and cells are small.

Most stars look smaller than cells to us. They both need magnifying devices. {*shrug*}

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:22   

Quote
I was erroneously misled by darwinian mythologies in my youth.


my broken record says:

Classic case of projection.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:32   

Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,10:53)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

Things may have changed..

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:47   

Definately worth a read.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,11:49   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2006,16:32)
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,10:53)
 
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

Things may have changed..

Yeah, JAD is no longer Dave's Master, but his ex-champion still supports 'prescribed evolution' doesn't he?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,12:24   

Whoa there... Is Davescot the poster really arguing about how fuzzy the boundaries between species actually are?

Davescot the UD moderator would have put him on the "list" immediately...

Oh boy, this guy deserves all the credit he gets as an entertainer... :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,15:07   

Actually I was thinking along the lines that accepting both BB coupled with an anthropic principle, like in The Privileged Planet, as well as a prescribed, front-loaded, version of evolution, it more easily squares with the notion of a God. By thinking along these lines, you can welcome most scientific data, while still allowing yourself to be pointed "seductively toward design" and therefore God.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,15:44   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,20:07)
Actually I was thinking along the lines that accepting both BB coupled with an anthropic principle, like in The Privileged Planet, as well as a prescribed, front-loaded, version of evolution, it more easily squares with the notion of a God. By thinking along these lines, you can welcome most scientific data, while still allowing yourself to be pointed "seductively toward design" and therefore God.

Well, yeah... But that would make his views practically indistinguishable from ToE (except in a vague, almost philosophical level, I guess). In effect, he would have no scientific grounds in which he could dispute and attack "evilutionists"... And since, as we all know, these guys are all bleeding heart liberal marxist pinkos as well (just ask Paley), that simply would not do.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,15:57   

haven't seen Paley lately, now that you mention it.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,16:05   

I think he said he's working on a Physics project or something... I'm not sure, however, whether it's one of his models or, you know, real science.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
JPadilla



Posts: 2
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:09   

As a Theistic Evolutionist, I'd like to thank the denizens of this board and their insights. After Seeing not merely the tactics, but also the intellectual ( and ethical) vacuity of William Dembski, I'll have nothing more to do with it. This was the final post I sent to "DaveScot," and the content owes a great deal to the archives here:

My Point is quite simple,DaveScot, and I know you read the posts here: You excoriate Kevin Padian (again, wrongly) for saying that religious fundamentalist fanatacism that leads to murder…is wrong.

You then take that simple idea and twist it to mean that Kevin Padian somehow hates all fundamentalists and lumps all killers together unfairly, according to your erroneous redefinitions of what a suicide bomber is. As I noted, SOME suicide bombings are considered legitimate military actions when directed against military targets. But you say :

“If Padian can’t tell the difference between a mass murdering suicide bomber indiscriminately blowing up crowds of people and a gunman carefully selecting a single target for murder then Padian simply isn’t playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn’t able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers and a single person against whom he holds a grudge.”

Let’s be quite honest, DaveScot: from what I have read at Uncommon Descent and other forums, your only interest in attacking Kevin Padian is not because he is a “racist” or that he “hates fundamentalism” because he said no such things. What you hate is that Kevin Padian testified in the Kitzmiller case, so you have embarked on what one writer at Panda’s Thumb has called a “SwiftBoat” campaign.

You rail at Padian for trumped-up claims that he NEVER said and then excuse your own murderous statements about killing Muslims. This is hypocrisy. You fail to allow others to point out your errors. This is called hubris. Here is what I really think, DaveScot — a person here, in the “After the Bar Closes” section analyzed you to what I think is a tee: You are at best a mediocre mind that was able to get in on the ground floor of a company which took off. But it was not due to your innate mental abilities—you don’t *really* know math, or stats or information theory, or genetics, or much of anything. It was simply luck. You have an overweening sense of your own self-importance however, and now seek the attention of others via your imagined mental abilities, but you fail in direct debate and exchange of ideas. So you used troll tactics at “Darwinist” sites until you got the attention of William Dembsky, who used what little computer skills you have to appoint you “gatekeeper” and you now feel all filled with self-importance, but still cannot manage a coherent supported debate.

So what is left for you but to pose and preen and attack people like Padian dishonestly and hypocritically while disallowing any disagreement…while others laugh at your inanity and point out your errors and fallacies and utter lies by the boatload at places like…here.

I will vote with my feet. In Mark 6:11 says that when one is not welcome or unheard, “shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.” I believe I’ll do just that.

Note: the above quote was also delivered here, under the  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/more_dembski_de.html#more   thread. Thanks for the good work here -- keep it up. No religion deserves the kind of "support" that William Dembski offers. Lies are not a good thing, last I heard. Sincerely, JP

  
Tiax



Posts: 62
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:13   

I'm worried...I just had a comment turn-around time of under five minutes (the first time I checked back).  Either there's a very quick moderator on duty at the moment, or I've snuck onto the "good kids" list.

:O

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:36   

Quote (Tiax @ May 14 2006,22:13)
I'm worried...I just had a comment turn-around time of under five minutes (the first time I checked back).  Either there's a very quick moderator on duty at the moment, or I've snuck onto the "good kids" list.

:O

Careful there, better do something to piss Dave off pronto, or your membership here might be seriously endangered...  :D

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

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:45   

simple question...instant ban

DaveScot are you an agnostic or a theist/deist?
You keep saying your agnostic...but yet you have also said you believe in some form of God...
You do realize that an agnostic has no opinion on any religious belief.....you seem to have no particular persuasion within the Judeo-Christian belief structure.
Maybe you should change your claim to agnosticism?

INSTANT BAN

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,18:08   

Dave doesn't know what the **** he is, which is on a par with the rest of what he claims to "think." Here's two posts dealing with his "views" :

"I’m not a religious person myself .. I’m deeply offended when I see attacks made not on ideas but instead on the people who hold them "...Comment #14012 Posted by DaveScot on January 17, 2005 09:43 AM http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....ng.html

" I’ve raised many different species of birds and mammals as pets...and if you look into their eyes you’ll see part of yourself in them ... They’re as much God’s creatures as you are."
Comment by DaveScot - November 2, 2005 @ 10:08 pm http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/445#comment-11687

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,19:56   

Dembski eats crow over his smear job on Kevin Padian:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1122

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

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,20:11   

Quote (keiths @ May 15 2006,00:56)
Dembski eats crow over his smear job on Kevin Padian:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1122

That's about as begrudging an apology you can give after you have been caught completely in the wrong:

Quote
Padian in his letter above does not dispute that he singled out “young” “Asian” “fundamentalists” as supporters of ID


Oh my, Padain forgot to refute every single word of Dembski's post, so that means it must have been partially true after all.

Give me a break.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,20:13   

I guess Dembski put this up whilst you were all asleep:

Public Retraction and Apology to Kevin Padian

For those of you who like your irony, from Dr./Prof. Padian's letter:


"In the first place, you completely distorted what I said by quoting out of context."


There's plenty more in there for you to chew over: I'm off to work now, but I expect to see a couple more pages of froth and mirth here by the time I get back.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,20:14   

Dembski is so far gone it's funny.

In a small way, I pity him.

In a larger way, I forgot about him ages ago.

In about a year's time, so will everyone else.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,20:53   

Quote
I’m not sure that “bigot” is any worse than “fundamentalist”


bigot-A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

fundamentalist-a person who believes in the interpretation of every word of sacred texts as literal truth

how in the #### are those two even similiar "attacks"...
especially since Dembski is a fundamentalist....and i believe he has claimed to be one on many occasions?
Its like calling someone gay....
Its an insult to a heterosexual....
but it is simply an accurate description for a homosexual...
(sorry...it was the only example i could think of that is regularly used as an insult when the term does not apply to the individual)

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,20:57   

Maybe. I, however, get some kind of a cheap thrill from folks like him. And, I can still post there because I am nice.  :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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