Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread started by Richardthughes


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2007,23:38

"For the kids" is not honest enough to allow comments that make her or her position look foolish go through, so this thread is for cross-posting.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2007,23:58

On this thread:

< https://www2.blogger.com/comment....2096862 >

For The Kids says this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
aka...Forthekids said...
Oh, baloney, Jeremy.

That's a stretch, buddy. The concept of ID is no more religiously motivated than Darwinism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



she was pointed to the wedge document:

< http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html >

and this passage:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She did not allow that post to go through.
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 18 2007,00:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2007,06:58)
On this thread:

< https://www2.blogger.com/comment....2096862 >

For The Kids says this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
aka...Forthekids said...
Oh, baloney, Jeremy.

That's a stretch, buddy. The concept of ID is no more religiously motivated than Darwinism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



she was pointed to the wedge document:

< http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html >

and this passage:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She did not allow that post to go through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well according to her that would count as 'stalking' ...right?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2007,01:02

She's just plain dishonest.
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 18 2007,01:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2007,08:02)
She's just plain dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, I was rhetorically poking fun since it’s the only sane response to insanity besides completely ignoring them.

FTK unfortunately suffers a credibility crisis, how to lie without lying, she's got the sincerity side of things down pat though.

Now all she has to do is cover up the truth.
Posted by: jujuquisp on Mar. 18 2007,01:26

ForkTheKids is pathetic.  She had the gall to categorize me as "one of them".  What an insult!  BTW, she only let me post once in response to DaveTard's accusation that I stalk him.  She omitted to permit my other posts which provided evidence to the contrary.  She can go fellate the pope, for all I care now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2007,01:28

Crosspost here, so her duplicity is evident.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 18 2007,08:28

I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2007,08:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She doesn't have much personality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2007,08:36

What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 18 2007,11:17

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2007,07:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She doesn't have much personality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose it's true everywhere, but in all my travels around this country, I meet a surprising number of people with less than half a brain.  To them, she probably looks brilliant.

I should also mention that the .4-brainers are in the minority (not always a clear minority, but a minority all the same).
Posted by: jujuquisp on Mar. 18 2007,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They found out about my body lice infestation.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2007,13:08

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,06:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They found out about my body lice infestation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mmm'kay???
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 19 2007,11:16

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:28)
I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She is one of those 'just folks' types, who can 'see through the BS' and get to the truth.

At least that is how she likes to portray herself.

I think she is a moron, myself.  I'
ve tried to post at her blog about 6 times - none made it through.  Of course...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 19 2007,14:07

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,11:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They found out about my body lice infestation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now how would FTK have found that out?

:O
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2007,09:58

Here:

< https://www2.blogger.com/comment....1993673 >

is taken to task for her coverage of the wedge document:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Re your extensive treatment of the "Wedge Document", that must have been on some other sites. A search for "wedge" on this blog reveals three citations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so she was clearly dishonest when she says:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richard, the reason why I didn't put your comment about the Wedge document through is because I have addressed that issue so many times in the past that it simply gets tiring. If you're interested in my response about it, go back through my archives and read to your hearts content.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She then says :

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dembski's flatulence comments were the only questionable comments he's ever made beside the silliness of the "vice strategy".


Let's not get into a ~who's the nastiness~ contest because that's one you'll not win.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, she talks a little about it here:

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006....0159138 >

although she fails to understand causality, it's explicit theism pretending to be science, not science that has theistic implications. Her tail wags her dog.
to which I've replied:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ID Side has a history of dishonesty & nastiness:

The Wedge document and its true agenda

Dembski's "Street theatre"

The Pianka affair

The Single bottle of malt scotch bet:

The EF: never used, unusable.

Davescot; any comment really!

etc.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2007,12:52

In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 20 2007,13:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:52)
In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume now that DaveTard has had this change of heart, he'll unblock everyone he's banned at UD and start spending more time commenting at blogs where people can respond to him, no?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2007,13:13

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 20 2007,12:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:52)
In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume now that DaveTard has had this change of heart, he'll unblock everyone he's banned at UD and start spending more time commenting at blogs where people can respond to him, no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. No one could ever accuse DaveTard of being a hypocrite....



*bites tongue*
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2007,19:27

FTK has asked about the evolution of the heart.

she has been pointed to this:

< http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1047/1/13 >
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 22 2007,10:33

Sometimes RSR's comments do momentarily disappear - I suspect this is due to Pat updating something and to the fact that blogger sucks - blogger sometimes won't let me comment on my own #### blog! :angry:

I think I can access the full PDF of the heart article if people can't get beyond the abstract.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2007,22:16

This whole thread is worth a read, especially the bit about "Dembski's day job"..

< https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5661756 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 27 2007,00:01

For The Kids Writes:

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007....ts.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hard telling what parts of the Bible they do accept. They're not exactly sure. I suppose only the parts that don't conflict with the current beliefs of the "scientific community".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I asked her which bits she believed. She didn't post my comment, nor answer the questions. If she doubts science so much, I'd love to hear her better explanation.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 27 2007,08:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2007,21:16)
This whole thread is worth a read, especially the bit about "Dembski's day job"..

< https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5661756 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard - Good catch - thanks for posting the link.  What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 27 2007,17:39

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 27 2007,18:15

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 27 2007,16:39)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spartacus - Good luck with the slave revolt thing, man.  Let me know if I can help.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 28 2007,10:31

Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

< http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html >

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 28 2007,10:37

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 27 2007,16:39)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm Spartacus and so's my wife!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 28 2007,10:57

Welcome Dave!

It's great to have another top notch biologist on board*



*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 28 2007,11:05

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,09:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

< http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html >

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats on a job well done and welcome aboard!

(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 28 2007,11:29

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,09:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

< http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html >

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome Albatrosity2.  I look forward to your continuing
the outstanding ID takedowns that you posted so well at FTK's blog.

I believe that as Mr. Jefferson once said you are:  "Moving On Up".  That's George, not Tom BTW...

However, I do think you should change your name ASAP to: SmartDave, or possibly DaveSmart, to distinguish yourself from DumbDave, aka DaveScot.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 28 2007,18:38

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2007,10:05)
(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles.   ;)
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 28 2007,20:07

Re "Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles."

Well, so are we. :)

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 28 2007,20:29

I sent it to Wesley. Wesley replied back that he'd get to it in a few days--he's still getting things together after the big cross-country move.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 28 2007,20:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,10:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

< http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html >

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to have you here. You're one of a few dozen science professors who are banned from UncommonDescent.  

Several people here are professors or professional researchers, about half seem to have science degrees, and the rest are knowledgeable amateurs.

We can always use more people who are smart and informed.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 28 2007,20:58

I was surprised to see FtK sign up, but she's welcome to comment here. I sincerely hope she's much smarter and more knowledgeable than some of her creationist predecessors, such as AFDave.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 28 2007,22:09

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 28 2007,17:38)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2007,10:05)
(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles.   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, reptiles are just fucked up birds that aren't cool enough to have feathers yet. ;)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, so are we.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nah, we're just glorified bonobos.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 29 2007,00:03

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/03/calm-after-storm.html >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Calm after the Storm
I lost it at Humes lecture...seriously.

I've listened to quite a few lectures surrounding the issues in this debate, but the lecture I sat through tonight was by far the most difficult to stomach. In fact, I had to leave my chair at one point because the guy next to me was about to get slapped.

This has ~NEVER~ happened to me before, and I've always been extremely calm at these lectures regardless of how much I disagree with the speaker. I also get quite irritated when I hear someone badgering the speaker etc. even if I agree with their point.

But tonight was different, and I'm trying to sit back and reasonably consider the lecture again to try to figure out what it was that led me to the point of no return.

I think the main reason is this particular speaker has been prefacing his book and lectures with the notion that he is "unbiased" and "fair". He was introduced that way this evening as well. So, you'd hope to actually get an "unbiased and "fair" account. I was still hoping for some semblance of fair reporting when I walked in there tonight, but I was ~seriously~ disappointed. His lecture was worse than the book.

To be honest, I'd rather listen to Dawkins speak again than sit through another Humes lecture, because at least with Dawkins we know what we're getting. He certainly doesn't claim to be "unbiased".

I'd also like to know where one draws the line between describing someone as misleading and being an outright liar. Seriously. I've never heard so many half truths, half of the story, or outright unfair *speculation* in my life.

I had made it through most of the lecture when at one point I simply couldn't take it anymore and turned around to talk to a guy I knew who was sitting behind me. My whispering was getting a bit loud, and the guy next to me (who I recognized from many other lectures) looked at me and gave me an irritated "shhh". I bit back "don't tell me to hush". I seriously cannot believe I said that!!! He told me to go have my conversation outside, and at that point I just got up and left, because staying simply wasn't going to be a good thing.

I did talk to Humes for a second afterward and asked him a question about something he mentioned in his lecture that I still cannot believe he had the gall to relay to the public. After his response, I really lost it and told him I hope the DI gets a hold of his lecture tonight because it was the most misleading portrayal of the issues that I've ever heard.

I'm still in shock. I am always cordial to people regardless of their position in this debate, but tonight I was out of control. I think the reason I got to the point I did is because the man is basically either a liar or clueless.

So, I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I try to put together a review of the lecture. I'm not even sure my notes are worth much because I was pretty much livid throughout his entire spiel. I do plan on calling KU to see how soon they will be posting that lecture, because if this dude is spewing this particular version of supposed facts in regard to ID/creation/evolution, then someone needs to set him straight. Although, thankfully, it doesn't appear that he lectures too often and there were only around 80 in attendance tonight. But, if the Darwinists get a load of the spin he's pushing, they'll undoubtedly put the guy on the payroll (if they haven‘t already). They do love a good spin doctor.

In closing, if there are any DI fellows out there reading this...get a copy of this lecture, and be sure to have a dozen or so barf bags lined up before you listen to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quick DI fellows...to the SpinMobile!
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 29 2007,07:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 28 2007,17:57)
Welcome Dave!

It's great to have another top notch biologist on board*



*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't listen to him Dave.....he's gay.


I'M NOT GAY AND DAVES NOT HERE -RTH
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 29 2007,09:55

Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

Or maybe they are all homos...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 29 2007,11:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 29 2007,08:55)
Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

Or maybe they are all homos...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First gay penguins, now gay Greater Prairie Chickens?

Why do birds hate the American family so?

:angry:

(Naturally this proves Intelligent Design. Just don't, uh, ask me how.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 29 2007,15:14

More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

< http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/03/lecontes_sparrow.php >

enjoy!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 29 2007,17:24

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 29 2007,14:14)
More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

< http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/03/lecontes_sparrow.php >

enjoy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I especially like the picture of the little guy in the top photo in < this page. > I feel like that all the time.

Incidentally, whatever happened to Mommy FTK? Did she look around the viper's nest of secular humanists and devilutionists here and get cold feet?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 29 2007,17:52

Maybe she just wanted to read and make the occasional comment. It's not likely this will become her primary forum, because she can't remove the arguments of informed people when necessary.

That's speculation; I don't know much about FtK, I'm basing this off the behavior of UD, where most of the people with science degrees have been banned.

And banned for the obvious reason. If your site is dedicated to advancing the theory that Honda Accords are powered by leprechauns, and internal combustion engines don't explain horsepower, you're going to need to ban most of the auto mechanics who stop by.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 29 2007,17:59

It's not so much banned as "never make it through moderation", especially those that highlight her hypocrisy.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 29 2007,19:49

I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on < this thread > never showed up.  I don't know why.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  A ginormous amount of flap-doodle.  This for instance:

ftk: <i>We are discovering things all the time that evolution can’t begin to explain...</i>

Yet the rest of the paragraph--and indeed, the comment--seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.

ftk: <i>hundreds of articles and books written by ID supporters</i>

Yes, I'm sure you can point me to some of the astounding DISCOVERIES in these papers, wherever they might be when you also point out the new DISCOVERIES in the the literature I have not yet read.

Something to ponder:  saying that the flagellum is IC is not an example of new knowledge.  Um,  "new knowledge" of a positive nature would be an example of new knowledge.  Something along the lines of "wow, the tennets of ID led me to postulate the existence of this anti-body and now I've found it."

ftk: <i>But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.</i>

This paragraph is a mess.  The first two sentences don't describe a scientific hypothesis.  They do describe something like the sentence, "That table is brown."  You are describing an observation, not an hypothesis and you apparently have an inkling of this in the next sentence about describing nature.

How exactly are we to know if an observation (your: hypothesis) is an accurate description of nature if it is untestable or uninvestigatable?  This is what we mean when we call ID a science-killer.  If all ID can do is generate information that needs no investigation, you know what?  It is boring and by definition would create no new knowledge.  We know the table is brown, no need to investigate.  But if you are asking truly interesting questions, you'll find the need to test them.  This is not what ID does.

And finally, your claim that discovering a new planet, or  moon, or star, or whatever doesn't generate new research is completely inane.  When we discover new moons, we send satellites to them.  When that produces new discoveries of minerals, gasses, or whatever, that generates new missions and new hypothesis about: planet formation, early solar-system make-up, possible extra-terrestrial life, etc.  The discovery of extra-solar planets has led to the testing and corraborating of many ideas in astronomy and cosmology: including star-planet development, pulsar study and more.

Do you really think that NASA scientists and all the world's astronomers just point telescopes at the sky, find a new piece of rock and then are done with it to find another piece of rock?  Is that all you think their jobs entail?

ftk: <i>As far as testable hypotheses, I believe that Behe has certainly provided that in the flagellum, along with the prediction of design in other molecular machines, and he has laid our the reasoning behind his claims.</i>

Are you familiar with the refutations of Behe and with his own continually changing definition of what exactly IC is?

My favorite:

ftk:  <i>But, it’s pretty apparent, that as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims, that ID does lead to further scientific research and the advancement of science. I’ve mentioned in the past that Harvard University has a research project regarding the origin of life due to the huge push to refute the ID movement.</i>

So, ID may not generate a noticable, or even visible, amount of research, but it's certainly valid and working because real scientists have decided to do work?  Come on, which ID scientists are involved in the project?  Which ID whizzes are funding this?  Which papers are being written by the ID guys?  That last paragraph is a hoot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do.  I am saddened beyond belief by this.  No, really; I'm crying.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 29 2007,19:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do.  I am saddened beyond belief by this.  No, really; I'm crying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, there, Blipey. There, there. [pats shoulder]


Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 29 2007,20:54

Blipey et al.

I guess we all will have to cry in our beers. FtK has not posted one of my comments (and I have sent her three of them) since I called her out on her lack of understanding of science and the scientific method (in a rather looooong post). Here is the link

< http://www2.blogger.com/comment....8695140 >

I can only speculate as to the reasons for that lack of comment throughput.

Perhaps she is still thinking about that post, and coming to the conclusion that she really doesn't know squat about science, but she does know what she likes (or dislikes, actually). Maybe she is going through a metamorphosis, and will emerge from the chrysalis as a changed and rational being, who finally sees ID as a pseudoscientific disguise of creationism.

Perhaps she is still so upset about hearing Humes' lecture that she is incapable of moderating blog comments for a few days.

Perhaps (and this is most likely) she is peeved at me for joining up here and showing my true colors as "one of them".

At any rate, I am truly saddened by this turn of events. One way to look at it was that her ID blog had its own "pet scientist", who assidously read her posts and commented as necessary. What other ID blog can claim that? Hopefully, she will eventually see the error of her ways and allow me to comment freely again, in the search for the truth that seems to be the Holy Grail of that blogging enterprise.

Or not.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 29 2007,21:30

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 29 2007,19:49)
FtK said:

For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. It's hard to believe anyone could say that.

As it stands, there are about 220 known planets.

Here are about 220 scientific papers about them...

< http://exoplanet.eu/biblio.php >

...In the last three months.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 29 2007,22:06

"For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research,"

Anyone who knows how science works can instantly recognize that such a statement is not merely wrong, it's next to impossible. I bet even a layman such as Davescot, whose only exposure to science is reading some old Scientific Americans, could tell you that statement is way off.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 29 2007,22:11

Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

Not cancelled, just postponed.  I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th.  I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 29 2007,22:21

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 29 2007,21:11)
Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

Not cancelled, just postponed.  I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th.  I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This deserves a thread of its own.

Yours,
"a bit touched".  :angry:
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 29 2007,22:27

I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 29 2007,22:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 29 2007,22:46

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2007,21:27)
I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're all pacifists here ('cept Lenny). BLipey will go in with a family pack of cheesypoofs. I l believe that Dave threatened BLipey with fisticuffs, but we all know that if you are that weight you should ease into strenuous exercise. I hope they meet and chat. We're all human.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 29 2007,22:51

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2007,21:27)
I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Am I supposed to have absolutely no idea what you're alluding to here?  ???
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 29 2007,23:10

I'm not alluding to the Blipey / Davescot thing really because I don't know what that thing is. I seem to remember something about a fight, I don't know how they set it up, or how the discussions were transmitted, I'm not saying Blipey threatened Davetard or vice versa, I'm just saying, as far as communications and ass-whoopings are in the air somewhere, I'd like everybody to avoid anything that may constitute a threat being posted here. I've been busy lately, and I haven't seen anything here and thought 'that's a threat', but what goes on here can potentially have legal implications and so I thought I'd mention that the internet isn't without consequences. Really, I'm thinking of a friend in Charlotte. He had a bad breakup, and the girl's crazy brother started sending him threats via email, and my friend found out the threats were being sent from a computer at Microsoft, and long story short, the threatener no longer works at Microsoft. I'm not accusing anybody, I don't know what's going on, I just wanted to mention that whatever happens, now or in the future, I'd like everyone to be conscious not to use this board to convey any threats. Just an FYI, not about anything in particular.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 29 2007,23:26

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2007,21:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I'm very aware of things that ToE can't (and doesn't purport to) explain, though I'm pretty sure FTK is unaware of said things (and explanations).

I'm frustrated that she doesn't bother to detail any of the things "We are discovering...."

Ah well, I'm sure she's working hard on producing tht list.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 29 2007,23:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 29 2007,21:46)
We're all pacifists here ('cept Lenny).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun".

(grin)
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 29 2007,23:34

Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin.  Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation.  I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer.  As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws.  So, it could be fun.
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 30 2007,02:41

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 30 2007,06:34)
Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin.  Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation.  I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer.  As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws.  So, it could be fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He boasts he 'carries concealed' ......so if he invites you to feel his equalizer, don't look straight at his crotch.

He may be just wanting to do a bit of male bonding and is probably thinking about firing at the inuit/polar bear target  he floats off the back of his scurvy sloop, so as long as he doesn't want to hold your arm when you shoot it should be OK.

When you see him ask him if he has any hot stock picks for creationist/ID bio-tech startups .......new species without RM+NS and anti chance worship amulets ..that sort of thing.

Or where he can get virgin birth prevention kits or 'rising after death' protectors .....oh and SPEAKING OF RISING AFTER DEATH WHERE does he get his illicit Viagra from?

ROLFING HOMOS. 'ROUND THESE PARTS I PREVENT VIRGIN BIRTHS ALL BY MYSELF. ITS A THANKLESS JOB BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT.-dt

HO RAH SEMPER TURD *fart*
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 01 2007,17:41

Well, I have joined you all in the list of folks who ridicule FtK and thus will have their comments banned at her blog. So much for the "slightly neurotic obsession for finding truth" that she claims to have. Truthiness, perhaps. Without real commenters, that blog will degenerate into a conversation between Larry Fafarman and her, which is a black hole of vacuity if e'er there was one!

I have a backlog of at least three comments that I sent before my fall from grace, so I will dig those up and post them here when I get the time, since this post is for crossposting items that never get to her comment board. But frankly, I'm not sure if it is worth it, since all it does is attract attention to a fairly standard parroting of creationist canards, gushing over the latest DI press releases, and the occasional right-wing rant. Do we really want to attract more attention to that?

Frankly, almost every item she posts could be answered the same way. All you have to do is ask "What is the evidence for that assertion?" (or perhaps, "On what planet did the evidence for that assertion originate?"). Then she will ignore that question and proceed to the next post. Not a lot of room for real intellectual interchange, alas.
Posted by: blipey on April 02 2007,00:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Without real commenters, that blog will degenerate into a conversation between Larry Fafarman and her, which is a black hole of vacuity if e'er there was one!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is certainly nothing new.  Welcome, Albatrossity2, to the world OF IDiots.  Most, if not all, ID blogs (not to mention books, conferences, and other events) involve the same sort of incestuous participation (or lack thereof).

For other not-so-stunning examples visit: <a href="www.uncommondescent.com" target="_blank">Uncommon Descent</a>, <a href="www.intelligentreasoning.com" target="_blank">Intelligent Reasoning</a>, or <a href="www.overwhelmingevidence.com" target="_blank">Overwhelming Evidence</a>.

I would like to thank you, Albatrossity2, for being outraged at these people.  But, I would also like to remind you to take them with the grain of salt which they deserve.  Otherwise they will drive you crazy.  They are not to be taken seriously.  That is, until they want to educate your children--then make a fuss and their stupidity will become obviousl (even to the American judicial system).
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,08:57

She *must* protect her worldview. It is so fragile, being based on a barley relevant work of fiction written long ago. I suspect she knows she is dishonest, though.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 02 2007,11:07

See

< http://www2.blogger.com/comment....0867407 >

wherein DT gets all sciency with his physician (single experiment, no controls = proof positive), appears to believe that hyperproteinemia is a good thing, and endorses a dietary product that has "some enzymes" which he apparently believes will survive digestion in the stomach and get to the right place to "accelerate fat burning". Lots of good stuff here.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,11:17

BEEFCAKE, BEEEEEEEFCAKE!!!!

BloaterTard.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,11:58

Dave,

The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog.

I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids.  I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues.  

But, since then I've found that you are not sincere.  

I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them.  If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through.

I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me.  

Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 02 2007,12:12

FtK

Cart before horse.

When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.

Oh, and BTW, it is not "ridicule" to point out truths such as your tendency to ignore questions and move to the next post, your tendency to link uncritically to anything posted by Luskin or Egnor, and your recycling of creationist deceptions. Ridicule is usually fact-free and malicious. In other words, it is what DaveScot does. But I'm sure he is "sincere", so that makes it all better.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 02 2007,12:28

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
Dave,

The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog.

I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids.  I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues.  

But, since then I've found that you are not sincere.  

I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them.  If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through.

I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me.  

Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am also a member of the general public. Please don't think that you speak on my behalf.

Can you explain why I can't find a single pro-ID site that allows general comments and critical posts, while #### near every anti-ID site does so?

A few years ago I was also an ID suporter. It didn't take long once I started to "follow the evidence no matter where it leads" to see exactly which side had the evidence.

No matter what you pretend to stand for, you are ignoring mountains of evidence and pointing at molehills of philosophy/apologetics/analogy to counter it.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,12:59

That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

Apparently, for some strange reason, you felt that would be a good time to come in here and join in the juvenile attacks on people whose views differ from their own.

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.

BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID.  I believe you probably recall that I don't < allow ridicule > regardless of who it's coming from.

BTW, I signed up here for occasions such as this.  If I feel I am being unjustly accused of something by various posters in this forum, I may choose to comment on it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,13:07

Hello and welcome FTK. Please note that all your posts go through instantly, although if they contain profanity they may get moved to "the bathroom wall".

I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,13:10

Stephen,

I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either.

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,13:12

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:10)
Stephen,

I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either.

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice of you to take the moral high-ground and show us how it should be done!
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,13:19

Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 02 2007,13:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whilst in no way wishing to cramp FTK's style, I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.

Unfortunately for FTK, ID is defunct as a political movement (and then limited to the US) and never was science, so I wonder if FTK has any thoughts on what strategy they might try next and why?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 02 2007,13:30

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:10)
Stephen,

I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either.

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi FTK.
I honestly hope that you do stay around for awhile.
Lenny Flank was also banned from PZMyers site (but I doubt you will consider Lenny an ally).

Maybe you missed the part where I said that I originally came "here"* as an ID suporter. I was convinced (at the time) that evolution was rubbish and ID was the way forward. I found that I had been lied to. You have been too. Just really do check out the evidence and arguments. This side is far more honest and open.

*Here=evolutionist/science sites and not specifically this one.

As an experiment FTK, name me one ID site that is as open to critics as this site. I will guarantee that you will not find one.

If you are genuinely searching FTK, you are in for a shock.

Best wishes.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 02 2007,13:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How on earth can you debate issues "respectfully". If I am wrong, I expect people to tell me I am wrong, and I wouldn't respect someone who patronised me by equivocating on their opinion to avoid hurting my feelings.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 02 2007,13:40

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2007,13:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How on earth can you debate issues "respectfully". If I am wrong, I expect people to tell me I am wrong, and I wouldn't respect someone who patronised me by equivocating on their opinion to avoid hurting my feelings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that you may have hit upon something there.
Most of the population do not think that way. They will make conversation around a bar and not expect to be held accountable on "niggling" details. I think that is the way normal people behave. Coming to a site like this is a culture shock for the "average Joe". It certainly was for me.

I am not objecting, just looking/saying.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,13:43

Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 02 2007,13:46

Actually, Stephen, I thought after posting my comment that I sometimes do refrain from unadorned honesty, especially when talking to my mother :)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 02 2007,13:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,12:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

snip...

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

snip...

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong again. My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments. Revisionist history only works if the folks who were involved have died, and rarely works on the internet, where everything is archived for everyone to see. It is harder to pin down, however, when my comments don't appear on your blog, because then nobody knows when I submitted them!

And yes, I admit I was pleased that all of my efforts to bring a note of reason to the ReasonableKansans blog were noticed here. That is not the same thing as signing up just to collect my "accolades", however. I came out of the closet because I despise anonymity, and because I was actually hoping that you had seen the light and would be willing to discuss things here in an open forum. Hope springs eternal...
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 02 2007,14:02

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,08:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK

You certainly don't need my permission for whatever you wish to do. I have no ambition to convince you of anything. You have the opportunity to broaden your outlook or not,as you choose.

I doubt you will find any comment of mine that contains vulgarity or nastiness, but I will certainly apologise if you prove me mistaken.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 02 2007,14:03

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,

Could you please consider this?

Scientific arguments are not about polite debate. Somebody spends time discovering evidence and then spends time to prepare and present it. At any time their hard work can be ridiculed and/or torn to shreds by counter evidence. Scientists accept this.

Science is not a polite conversation. Accept that or do not post on blogs that have scientists posting science.

I was also shocked at the way conversations happened on science blogs when I first started posting. BTW you really should check the talkorigins site before making arguments that got refuted years ago.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,14:11

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,12:59)
BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID.  I believe you probably recall that I don't < allow ridicule > regardless of who it's coming from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From your Blog:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot said...
Curious about what school district in their right mind would include a book on family illustrating a homo household for students only five years old I googled Lexington "David Park" and found it was Lexington, Massachusetts. Figures. I wonder if the parent can get a fair trial in that homo haven where the jury won't be a jury of peers but rather a jury of queers. ROFLMAO - I crack me up. Am I allowed to use the word "queer" here or is calling a poofter a queer considered name-calling?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




.....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forthekids said...
Holy crap, Dave. You are going to get me in all kinds of trouble...

I'm going to have to post a disclaimer somewhere...

"I will not be held responsible for what comes out of DaveScot's mouth".

LOL...

8:02 AM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OH NO! THE IRON FIST OF FTK!
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,14:15

Dave wrote:
“My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.”

This is the first sentence in your second post here:

“Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!”

I noticed another post soon after that one, so at that point I started holding your comments on my blog.

you wrote:
“When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.”

Your comment I highlighted above came *before* I started holding your comments on my blog.  Of course no one here will take my word for it, but in your first post you did not mention that I had banned you, neither did you state that I wasn’t responding to you.  

I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere.  I was mistaken.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,14:20

Richard,

You might notice that DaveScot got the point.  I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,14:27

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:20)
Richard,

You might notice that DaveScot got the point.  I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't allow, or you don't allow any more? No double secret moderation for DaveTard.

You seem to take umbrage over people saying nasty things elsewhere. I've highlighted to you numerous indiscretions from Dave in various blogs and yet he still posts on your blog. I'm having trouble understanding how this is not a double standard. Please help, FTK!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 02 2007,14:32

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:15)
Dave wrote:
“My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.”

This is the first sentence in your second post here:

“Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!”

snip

I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere.  I was mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?  Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)?  Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.

But we digress, per usual, by focusing on nit-picky he-said/she-said sideshows.

You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that?
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,14:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,15:07)
Hello and welcome FTK. Please note that all your posts go through instantly, although if they contain profanity they may get moved to "the bathroom wall".

I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I won't bother to defend our moderation policy vs that of ID blogs', the difference is obvious.

I will remind everyone, though, that there is one basic rule here--discuss things respectfully with each other as you would in, say, a college classroom. Unnecessary insults will be moved to the bathroom wall.

(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,14:44

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 02 2007,16:03)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,

Could you please consider this?

Scientific arguments are not about polite debate. Somebody spends time discovering evidence and then spends time to prepare and present it. At any time their hard work can be ridiculed and/or torn to shreds by counter evidence. Scientists accept this.

Science is not a polite conversation. Accept that or do not post on blogs that have scientists posting science.

I was also shocked at the way conversations happened on science blogs when I first started posting. BTW you really should check the talkorigins site before making arguments that got refuted years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science gets heated sometimes, and it's impolite in the sense that scientists routinely challenge each others' fundamental beliefs, but it still needs to be respectful in the college classroom sense I mentioned.

To assist this discussion away from meta-issues about moderation and sincerity and things like that, and onto the meat of the scientific, legal, and political issues ID raises, I'll post here some questions for FtK to get the ball rolling:

1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you?

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,14:59

That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,15:04

"difference (sic) scientific perspectives"

As in redefine science to allow, astrology, etc?
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,15:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you'd like to inject a little science into our forum here, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to discuss with. AFDave sure did.
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,15:34

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:59)
But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< I have >.

< And not just that one. >

< Or that one. >

< Or that one. >
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,15:42

FtK, do you have any scientific training?
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,15:43

Dave wrote:
“What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?”

It was very clear that you were trying to get around the topic at hand.  I merely decided to stick to the original conversation and emphasize why I am not putting your comments through moderation at my blog.

you wrote:
“Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)? Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.”

It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.

“You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that? “

It’s not “sneaky” at all.  Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.   It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were, you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,15:50

FtK said,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

in regards to this:
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,07:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

< http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html >

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see. The ridicule contained in the post above is what made FtK decide to hold up Albadave's posts. His association with CBEBs, I assume, necessarily makes him insincere.

Come on FtK, bring undo me the science! Show me a peer-reviewed paper that you've read and found impressive!
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,15:52

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:43)
It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like Uncommon Descent, for example.

There really isn't a 'debate' other than creationists trying to create a cultural movement.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,15:55

Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, < here >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,16:01

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html >

Behe, would like to create his own scientific definitions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

A Yes.

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It sure is tough sneaking Jebus in.
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,16:02

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,16:16

"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,16:20

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:16)
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exceeded only by the cuteness of the commenter. Shall I assume that you indeed have no science to present here, and are simply on a cultural crusade?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,16:25

It's one of Bill O'Reilly's Culture warriors!

Quick, secular progressives, hide! (no bloviating or being a popinjay)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 02 2007,16:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers,

snip...

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

I won't call it BS yet, but I have to admit that I am skeptical about the claim that you have read peer-reviewed papers. That skepticism is based on two independent lines of evidence.

1) In my all-too-brief time commenting on your blog, I quickly discovered that your attendance at lectures, reading of books, and forays into blogs had not resulted in any obvious understanding of evolution, much less science in general. You showed, and I commented about it here

< http://www2.blogger.com/comment....1678622 >

that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. So what, exactly, did you get from any peer-reviewed article you read?

2) It is my experience that science majors have lots of trouble with peer-reviewed primary literature. It is my experience that graduate students in biology have lots of difficulties in navigating a primary literature paper. It is my experience that reading the peer-reviewed literature is a skill that can be learned, but it takes time, and it takes effort. Where and when did you put in that sort of time and effort?

So yeah, I'd be real interested in hearing about any peer-reviewed articles in biology that you might have encountered, and extremely interested to hear about what you learned from those.

Take your time, I know you have lots of other questions to answer. But also remember that I am not the only one asking this question; argystokes would also like to know about this as well!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 02 2007,17:19

FtK:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not all ridicule is inappropriate.

You have been asked several times to provide some scientific content for ID.  You have been asked whether you actually have any science training or whether you have invested the necessary time and preparation to be able to intelligently digest the primary biology literature.

You have ignored all these relevant and non-ridiculous questions in your own attempt to sling criticism with Teh Big Boyz.

Hint: don't give up your day-job, which obviously is neither comedy nor science.

Rephrased: you have long shown yourself to be an entirely appropriate object of ridicule.  If you would like to shed that particular skin, do the requisite work and demonstrate that you have earned the respect--rather than the ridicule--of those that actually have done the work.

Or keep on as you have started out.

As much as we would enjoy it, on one level, if you wised up, we'll still enjoy it, on an entirely different level, should you choose not too.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,18:03

Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  Obviously, I should not have used the word hypothesis in that particular example, though it would be useless to try to convince you that I do know what the word means.  It's one of the first things you learn in high school biology class, so I'd guess that most people are able to use that particular word appropriately.    

You and I both know that I wrote three lengthy posts that evening in response to some of your comments.  You also know (because I mentioned it) that I fell asleep with my laptop still in my lap that night because I was up too late putting together responses to your posts like I promised I would.  Some of you seem to have an excessive amount of time to spend in these Internet blogs and forums whereas I have a life outside of cyberspace and have to squeeze in time when I can.  I was tired and made an error - simple as that.

I also remember that you used the word "prove" when talking about scientific evidence one time, and you know that the word "prove" in not appropriate in that type of discussion.  So, we all make mistakes occasionally.

Granted, I would hope that I don't know as much about science as you do seeing as you are a biology professor.  But, nonetheless, I think I have the right to discuss these issues and also consider the position of your opponents as well.  Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,18:18

Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 02 2007,18:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you're certainly running low on tenable excuses.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:24

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, uh, why are you here . . . . . ?
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,18:26

FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us. So let's drop the complaining and talk about the science. Some questions about the science:

1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you? (edit: 0 *scientific* publications. They write a lot of articles in National Review and the Weekly Standard etc, but those aren't scientific publications)

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:28

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 02 2007,13:30)
Lenny Flank was also banned from PZMyers site
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I don't know if I was banned (although I do recall PZ mentioning something about it).  Since I've never tried to POST at PZ's blog, I simply don't know if I can or not.


As for FTK's whining, I grew tired, decades ago, of listening to the fundies and their interminable martyr complexes.  Cry me a river, FTK.  (shrug)
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,18:29

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:18)
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A nearly-nonmoderated forum with a mix of scientists and laypeople is certainly a bad place for discussing the peer-reviewed literature. Better to do it behind the curtains of comment-screened blogs. So the truth gets out, ya know.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:31

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would think that the word "science" would be at the top of the list --- it's entirely irrelevant to this "debate", since the IDers consistently and adamantly refuse to, ya know, *present* any.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:34

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,18:36

Stevestory wrote:

"FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us."

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

I've been reading threads here for some time now due to my sitemeter picking up on your regulars who apparently found it thrilling to post rude comments on my blog.  Before that time, I didn't even know this place existed.  Obviously, there is nothing of value coming from this site.

I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,18:38

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,20:34)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I haven't seen anything of yours lately that was a problem. I should have said "GoP, Skeptic, Louis". They're the three who are annoying me at the moment. Mibad.

FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow.

If you ever want to discuss the science, you know where to find us.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:39

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the trial transcript:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

A I'm sorry?

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:42

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And who can blame you.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:46

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo !!!!!!!!!!

Well, my dear, go ahead and stamp your feet and shout "YOU'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF BIG MEANIES !!!!" at us, get it all out of your system, and then go away.

Thanks.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,18:49

Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:50

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,18:38)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,20:34)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I haven't seen anything of yours lately that was a problem. I should have said "GoP, Skeptic, Louis". They're the three who are annoying me at the moment. Mibad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez, once ya get that Scarlet Letter tattoo'ed on your forehead, it NEVER goes away . . . . .
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,18:55

So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,18:58

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:49)
Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, I don't see why that matters. I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me the degree that something is science can't ever decrease. Since science is all about finding testable explanations for the natural world, the scientific content of any field of study is the number of experiments and the explanatory power of the possible results of those experiments. Astrology to my knowledge has never had any experiments to test ideas, and there certainly aren't fewer experiments that one could perform today than in 1369. So it's just as scientific today as it ever was. Likewise with ID.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,18:58

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:49)
Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, since you're not here for a serious discussion, and have already refused in advance to answer anyone's questions, please don't waste my time by talking to me.

Thanks.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,18:59

Stevestory wrote:
"FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow."

Is what I'm writing insulting to you?  I was merely stating facts.  But, if you do consider them insults, wouldn't I fit right in with the rest of you.  That's what you do, correct?  And, many of you have said that your demeanor is appropriate, so why the big "Wow" at the end of your sentence?
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,19:02

So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,19:03

Not a problem, Lenny.  Consider it done.
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,19:16

Stevestory wrote:

“So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?”

Goal?  Need there be a goal when entering this forum?  It seems to me that the conversations here are merely sporadic posts on nothing of particular interest.

I entered the forum to counter < Dave’s assumptions > as to why his comments were not showing up on my blog.  He apparently thought it was due to an enlightening revelation which led me to the “conclusion that [I] really do[n't] know squat about science“.

So, there you have it.  I provided Dave with the real reason why his posts aren’t making it past moderation, and at that point was flooded with further comments from the gang.

So, I’ll take my leave now and go enjoy a nice evening with my family.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 02 2007,19:27

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,18:24)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, uh, why are you here . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps she thinks if she can pass herself off to the rubes as some kind of 'martyr' then Intelligent Design will win and all those little children in Kansas will be rescued. She's certainly not here to, like, discuss science or evolution.
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,19:29

FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,19:35

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not likely. I've just taken a look at her blog, and there isn't any science there either. A complete lack of understanding of science is apparent, however:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolutionary-yearnings.html
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,19:42

Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment < a few pages back. >
Posted by: argystokes on April 02 2007,19:54

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:42)
Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment < a few pages back. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah. I knew it looked familiar. OK then, here's another

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, in regard to evolution and the origin of life, we are talking about a historical inference and I believe any literate person can research these issues for themselves and understand them quite well as it’s certainly not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious that those leading darwinists pushing their views on evolution are not involved in the debate merely due to the scientific evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly, laypeople can understand abiogenesis research just as well as the scientists themselves. Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,20:00

Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,20:54)
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:42)
Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment < a few pages back. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah. I knew it looked familiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there's no harm in repeating it. I could read "For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research," every day for a year, and I still wouldn't understand how anyone could say it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,20:19

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,19:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because, ya know, ID is all about the science.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,20:20

Hello, I have a near neurotic obsession with the truth. I don't want to talk science with you though, because you're all "one of them".

Right, I'm off to repost some DI press releases.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 02 2007,20:23

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,19:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the folks here are more than willing to discuss science on whatever subject you choose and in whatever level of detail you would like.  But, I would respectfully suggest that coming in here and going on about how we are all bad and you would certainly never engage such nasty people in an adult conversation isn't likely to lead to anyone engaging with you in a meaningful way. Reap, sow, yadda, yadda.

There are real working scientists here who now more about the various subjects than you and I can ever imagine.  If you want to learn more about what they do and how it is relevant to the whole debate, you should give them the benefit of the doubt and start a conversation like the adults that we all are. I am willing to bet that if you come into a conversation in that manner, it will be reciprocated in kind.  However, if your goal here is to stir up a hornets nest, act like scientists have nothing to teach you about science, and then go back to your own blog and talk about how nasty all those foulmouthed scientists were to you (bless their hearts!), then your sweet-sounding obstinance is the right way to go.

Look at it this way. You have nothing to lose by trying to start an adult conversation. Perhaps, you could learn alot about who these people are and the cool things they do as scientists. Or perhaps, they will give you good reason to go back and talk about what asses they are.  Either way, it looks like a win-win for you.

-3, -24
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 02 2007,20:43

Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,19:54)
Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's ask Werner Von Braun:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature with a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Of course, Von Braun's vaunted religious faith in design didn't seem to prevent him from building ballistic missiles for the  ***Nazis***  . . . . . . Remember that, the next time some foaming fundie yammers to you that "Darwin was a racist !!!".
Posted by: stevestory on April 02 2007,21:43

Best I can tell, FtK was never banned at Panda's Thumb, by the way.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 02 2007,22:08

P.Z. Myers rejects the claim that FtK was banned at Pharyngula as well. He does say that FtK was put on notice there, but that is not banning.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 02 2007,22:18

I think FTK was a little over-eager to assume her mantle of martyrdom.

I'm sure she had splendid reasons for banning Dave the ornithologist, tho. [eye rolling icon needed here]
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 02 2007,22:40

Latest poll on faith, evolution, etc.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ >
Posted by: Ftk on April 02 2007,23:01

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 02 2007,22:08)
P.Z. Myers rejects the claim that FtK was banned at Pharyngula as well. He does say that FtK was put on notice there, but that is not banning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, you might work harder on your reading comprehension.  I'll repeat what I said:

"I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either."

I was banned from KCFS and I assume I was banned at PT because I was not able to post for months, and when I emailed admin., I received no response as to why I could not post.  I have just recently been able to get comments through again.  

I *never* claimed that PZ "banned" me.  I said he "doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through".  He has, on occasion, made my posts unreadable.  So they make it past moderation, but they have been messed with so that the words look like gibberish.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 02 2007,23:58

P.Z. responded with a denial to a quote of FtK's earlier statement. "Banning" was my phrasing here; I stand corrected so far as what FtK was stating about her experience at Pharyngula, but that does not affect P.Z.'s denial that FtK's original quoted description is accurate.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 03 2007,00:25

I've checked my logs. I've never received any email from the address registered with FtK's account here. Would that have been a different account, perhaps?
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 03 2007,03:52

I remarked earlier:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to see those expectations fully confirmed. The good thing is that she has such a small sphere of influence that it hardly matters.
Posted by: JonF on April 03 2007,06:35

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,20:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  She's a die-hard Walt Brown adherent.  Those types never dare discuss the science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 03 2007,06:44

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,
What were those peer reviewed papers about? They were not supporting ID, as unless i'm very much mistaken there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID
So what were they and why were you reading them? And did you believe them? If not, what problem did you have with them and will you be submitting a peer-reviewed paper to the journal in question rebutting their claims?
Posted by: Louis on April 03 2007,06:47

Oh no am I for the naughty corner again? But I'm really trying to be a good boy.

Louis
Posted by: k.e on April 03 2007,06:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,22:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O

she said **** ***** and *****

She's a witch, shes a witch, burn her ban her I say.


Of course ftk, it may be that the only honest peer review you will ever get in your vacuous insouciant life  of your ......er 'actual honesty' will probably be here and now.

Have a shit free day.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 03 2007,07:16

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  

snip...

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that was the only "error", I wouldn't have made the conclusion that your scientific understanding was negligible. The comments where I discussed that particular error contain multiple observations, all consistent with the hypothesis that your scientific understanding is negligible.

In addition, on two previous comment threads at your blog, I posed some problems to see if you knew anything about how evolution works, and also to see if you had any critical thinking skills. One of those problems is an example that I have used in my freshman biology class. Neither you nor DaveScot, who dropped into that particular comment thread, came close to giving me a useful answer.To his credit, after some snarling ad hominem putdowns, Dave did google an appropriate scientific paper and paste some comments from it (without thinking about the content, unfortunately)

So I actually have lots of observations to support that conclusion. In addition, I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant about science; that is putting words in my mouth again. I give folks the benefit of the doubt; they have to prove their ignorance. And I will change my mind about you, if you ever give me any evidence otherwise.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 03 2007,09:17

< This > is what PZ actually says about FTK's status:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These are a few annoying people I'm putting up with for now, but might throw into the hoosegow soon.

For the Kids
AKA FtK A particularly contemptible creationist who specializes in smarm and ooze. As you might guess from the alias, she thinks she's acting out of concern for children. Not a frequent commenter, though, so I haven't done much about her yet; she's been trolling Skatje's blog, though. Skatje thinks she's creepy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on April 03 2007,09:47

Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,09:53

Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:47)
Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If she wants to talk about science, we've got some good questions up for her. I want to see her explanation for how Wolpert doesn't understand his NFL theorem.
Posted by: Louis on April 03 2007,09:55

Awwwwww but STEEEEEEEEEEEVE!!

Okay!

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 03 2007,10:11

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,09:53)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:47)
Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If she wants to talk about science, we've got some good questions up for her. I want to see her explanation for how Wolpert doesn't understand his NFL theorem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I think this is wrong, for a couple* of reasons.

1) She is a layperson, so the demands are unreasonable.
2) "X can't explain Y" is so Intelligent Design. Let's hear competing theories, but they must be theories, mind you.
3) Perhaps she has some questions of us that would broaden her (and my) understanding. Let's have them, we've got some really bright guys and girls her.

*Edit: Couple being 'three', apparently..
Posted by: Louis on April 03 2007,10:13

You're right. I was being unfair. Sorry FTK. Have you got any scientific questions for any of us?

Louis
Posted by: k.e on April 03 2007,10:17

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,04:43)
   
Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,19:54)
Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's ask Werner Von Braun:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

etc etc etc etc..

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Of course, Von Braun's vaunted religious faith in design didn't seem to prevent him from building ballistic missiles for the  ***Nazis***  . . . . . . Remember that, the next time some foaming fundie yammers to you that "Darwin was a racist !!!".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow !!!

Werner Von Braun father of the ICBM  AND ID!!!!!!

bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....Must have been one of his duds.....it blew up on the launch pad....Dembski and Behe get nasty burns...god ...oh .....er the designer refuses to attend court to state his case to end argument for ever. Leaves ID in tatters supported only by a rusted on backwash loony fringe.

Ex Nazi rocket scientist discovered to be founding father of ID.

Stories of U boats with billions in gold bullion to found a 5th Reich resurface after Bill Dembski applies his EF filter to Von Braun’s unpublished manifesto for Designer World; a utopian walled state within a state where dissent is crushed through a Matrix like thought control PC/TV screen spewing Designer Party propaganda into every home.

NEWSPEAK reports 91% success.

The Designer Party demands 100% before implementing the final solution.

Designer Party broadcasts called DOG casts are carried on every news channel and the Designer’s message completely permeates every corner of society.  ‘Bless us O Designer’ is printed on Designer currency and his corporate symbol (a capital D with a semicolon in yellow or after dark a snake eating its own tail) is placed all over the country, people have T shirts printed with it and give them away on street corners along with the Designer Parties little black book a plagiarized reprinting of the Gospel according to Judas where the Designer Party apparatchiks have their names replace the Apostles ….William, Michael, Casey, Davetard, Sal etc.

What is left of government allows the Designer Party to take over the delivery of social security which is renamed as WHAMO.

Meetings are called once a week on Designer day where Designerists call the Party faithful to order and intone serious messages that scare children and cause them to grow up, get drunk and not wear undies to nightclubs and post the photos on MySpace.

TV's in Elevators and other public spaces urge followers of the Designer Party on as they go to their workstations to wage a cyber war on reality.

Whole countries disappear in a sea of useless noise as the Designer Party takes over the world’s most powerful democracy and fills the airwaves with manufactured homogenous drivel to both titillate and bore and totally mask the body count.

Forming an unholy alliance with a sinister cabal of corporations seemingly much more powerful than the mysterious Designer who seems to be permanently absent with only his press office able to issue ‘news releases' the Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .
Posted by: J-Dog on April 03 2007,11:18

Quote (k.e @ April 03 2007,10:17)
8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....Must have been one of his duds.....it blew up on the launch pad....Dembski and Behe get nasty burns...god ...oh .....er the designer refuses to attend court to state his case to end argument for ever. Leaves ID in tatters supported only by a rusted on backwash loony fringe.

Ex Nazi rocket scientist discovered to be founding father of ID.

Stories of U boats with billions in gold bullion to found a 5th Reich resurface after Bill Dembski applies his EF filter to Von Braun’s unpublished manifesto for Designer World; a utopian walled state within a state where dissent is crushed through a Matrix like thought control PC/TV screen spewing Designer Party propaganda into every home.

NEWSPEAK reports 91% success.

The Designer Party demands 100% before implementing the final solution.

Designer Party broadcasts called DOG casts are carried on every news channel and the Designer’s message completely permeates every corner of society.  ‘Bless us O Designer’ is printed on Designer currency and his corporate symbol (a capital D with a semicolon in yellow or after dark a snake eating its own tail) is placed all over the country, people have T shirts printed with it and give them away on street corners along with the Designer Parties little black book a plagiarized reprinting of the Gospel according to Judas where the Designer Party apparatchiks have their names replace the Apostles ….William, Michael, Casey, Davetard, Sal etc.

What is left of government allows the Designer Party to take over the delivery of social security which is renamed as WHAMO.

Meetings are called once a week on Designer day where Designerists call the Party faithful to order and intone serious messages that scare children and cause them to grow up, get drunk and not wear undies to nightclubs and post the photos on MySpace.

TV's in Elevators and other public spaces urge followers of the Designer Party on as they go to their workstations to wage a cyber war on reality.

Whole countries disappear in a sea of useless noise as the Designer Party takes over the world’s most powerful democracy and fills the airwaves with manufactured homogenous drivel to both titillate and bore and totally mask the body count.

Forming an unholy alliance with a sinister cabal of corporations seemingly much more powerful than the mysterious Designer who seems to be permanently absent with only his press office able to issue ‘news releases' the Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



k.e. - Nicely done - Are you working on the sequal now?
Posted by: k.e on April 03 2007,11:49

Quote (J-Dog @ April 03 2007,19:18)
Quote (k.e @ April 03 2007,10:17)
8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....SNIP ... Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



k.e. - Nicely done - Are you working on the sequal now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ftk provided the inspiration or agravation its hard to tell sometimes...

...all that is required is an insult to my intelligence which as you can probably tell by my counter-insults are more insult than intelligence.

If you want more dig me up some delicious fresh tard...snicker.


MY INTELLIGENCE IS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF NEVERLAND  NEAR THE BIT WHERE THE GREEN WIGGLY LINE MEETS THE BLUE BIT. LORFING I INSULT MYSELF SOMETIMES-dt
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 03 2007,13:19

Louis writes:
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:13)
You're right. I was being unfair. Sorry FTK. Have you got any scientific questions for any of us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But if you already have < all the answers > , why would you have any questions?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 03 2007,13:36

I think PZ sums her up pretty well:

For the Kids
AKA FtK A particularly contemptible creationist who specializes in smarm and ooze.

It was interesting to watch "Dave" (Albatrossity2) post on her lame blog, but she came here with a chip on her overweight shoulder, and she can leave with a kick to her no doubt expansive backside.  
Posted by: Ftk on April 03 2007,13:54

ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 03 2007,14:01

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, whatever. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist invented your modern way of life. What you've done?

EDIT: And threats of violence? I guess we should expect no less when logic fails you.

EDIT EDIT: And you've not addressed a single substantive point on this thread. Do you think your stereotypical nerdy scientist will fail to notice, and note such a data point?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ever meet AFDave FTK? That's what lies ahead on the road you are travelling. Your behaviour here reminds me so of him.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 03 2007,14:07

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are really good looking. I can easilly accept that. Now, are you willing to answer any serious questions?

Before you make an argument though, check it out on talkorigins first. Chances are, it is already on there. I found that quite embarrasing.
Posted by: slpage on April 03 2007,14:26

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?
Posted by: slpage on April 03 2007,14:29

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:19)
Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah....

So what is your position on people who simply ignore contrary evidence?
Posted by: slpage on April 03 2007,14:35

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's that strange right-wing obsession with potty-mouth.  Oh, they can claim that we are all deluded, deceived, all liars, incompetents, stupid, childish, etc. But boy if you toss out the a-word, they don't wanna talk to you meanie-heads no more!
Posted by: slpage on April 03 2007,14:44

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, do you think one has to be a genius to engage in 'rocket science'?  I ask because, first of all, 'rocket scientists' are primarily engineers, which are applied scientists (that is, they take the primary research that others have done and apply it to particular problems).  Sure, there are physicists involved, but I don't suspect it is terribly difficult to plug numbers into alread-developed formulae to figure things out, providing you have the appropriate training.

Plus, I purchased this compendium of information on the Saturn 5 rocket - 4 DVDs with something like 16 hours of footage.  And I was surprised to see how many failures there were on the project - valves not working and causing explosions, welds not holding, incorrect values being employed producing catastrophic failures in test engines and fuel tanks and all kinds of stuff.

When you only focus on the successes, it sure is impressive to be called  a 'rocket scientist'. If you look at the big picture, they re really no 'better' than any other scientist.

And it is a HUGE misconception that biology is so easy.  If that were the case, people like3 Dembski would not still be relying on asinine english language analogies.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 03 2007,14:49

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve Story and I are both north of 6'2....

OH MY GAWD I SOUND LIKE DAVETARD!

In other generalization news.. those little Asians sure do love photography..... and electronics.

Narrow minds with broad bushes..
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 03 2007,14:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suppose it's vastly easier for FTK to collect dirty words than actually, you know, refute the scientific challenges to ID. That'll win over lots of converts, and temporarily distract people from her own dishonest nonsense.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please. The Mister Tough Guy routine doesn't work for Dave Scot, what make you think YOU can pull it off?


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 03 2007,15:13

Quote (slpage @ April 03 2007,14:26)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I think it's all hot air. In some ways it's like teenagers boasting about how many cigarettes they smoke, but in reality they don't smoke at all.

Guess how many peer reviewed papers I read last night?

I'd propose a wager as to FTK's response, but there's too many people here who'd know a sure thing when they saw it :) and the odds would have to be looonnggg.

IDers think if you have the slightest veneer of science (the verbal equivilent of the lab coat, chucking around the phrase "peer reviewed article") then somehow ID will become science and it's practitioners scientists. Like sombody here pointed out, IDers are cargo-cultists.
Posted by: bystander on April 03 2007,16:54

As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here.
Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence.

Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why.

I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 03 2007,17:01

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,16:54)
As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here.
Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence.

Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why.

I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POST OF THE DAY
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,17:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 03 2007,15:01)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, whatever. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist invented your modern way of life. What you've done?

EDIT: And threats of violence? I guess we should expect no less when logic fails you.

EDIT EDIT: And you've not addressed a single substantive point on this thread. Do you think your stereotypical nerdy scientist will fail to notice, and note such a data point?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ever meet AFDave FTK? That's what lies ahead on the road you are travelling. Your behaviour here reminds me so of him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave gets killed when he puts forth really horrible YEC 'science' arguments. FtK is choosing to avoid this fate, apparently. I'm hoping that changes and she wants to start talking about papers, data, predictions, and the like. We need some red meat. Arguing about science has been a little thin since AFDave.

By the way, you're all encouraged to seek out and invite creationists here. With no creationists here, all we get to do is laugh amongst ourselves about what they post on UD, OE, etc. Sure, it's fun, but it gets a little old.
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,17:38

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you meant Wells's or Wells'.
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,17:46

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 03 2007,17:52

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 03 2007,17:58

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proof that no bible = no morality.


*Hides Grandma*
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 03 2007,18:00

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,17:46)
 
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me it's the "and now what" factor.
Electromagnetism and electricity discovered? Check
And now we've got tv, computers, modern world.

SloT disproves evolution? Ok, accepted for purposes of argument.
So now what? What ya got instead? How do you explain evolution/Slot and with a pathetic level of detail please!

ID proves designer designed? Hum, ok.
And what changes? ID only claims to "Detect design" remember (well, depends on who you ask really!). It's a simple yes.no. Does not move things on much really!

Self replicating machines become self aware? Erk!
I welcome our new nano-bot masters with open arms!

Before the internet I expect the only place with the levels of concentration of  irrational people we see at UD were asylums!
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,18:26

Since our moderation policy here was attacked recently, I'll point out that in 9 months as moderator, I have banned as many people as Davetard banned < yesterday >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 03 2007,18:30

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,18:26)
Since our moderation policy here was attacked recently, I'll point out that in 9 months as moderator, I have banned as many people as Davetard banned < yesterday >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascist!
Posted by: J-Dog on April 03 2007,19:21

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the update, but science is all about hypothesis and observation.

Hypothesis:  On diet to slim down

Observation:

< >

Conclusion:  Perfect match for DaveTard and/or Family Size bag of Cheesy Poofs
Posted by: k.e on April 03 2007,19:40

Your a cruel cruel caveman caveman.

Ftk good luck with the threats and boasts, the more the better are you sure you're not ...er gay? a homo? er a dyke no no no a lickalottapussie .....F%ck..a boy  ambidexterous?
Posted by: bystander on April 03 2007,19:40

Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:38)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you meant Wells's or Wells'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Written language has never been my strong suite
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 03 2007,20:08

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is actually starting to look like some kind of fetish of yours, Lenny...

Well, that and that whole reptile thing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 03 2007,20:40

< Another rebuttal to her bullshit > for FTK to ignore:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK - have you considered that the 130+ people who left comments are not a representative sample of the population of planet earth, or of the USA?
Ballpark figures here:
Atheists comprise approximately 10% of the US population. And yet over 50% of the US population accepts the theory of evolution. Call it fifty. Let's see then, if we assume that all atheists accept evolution, that means that 44% of American non-atheists accept evolution. Hand-in-hand? I don't think so.
Geez. Use your head. My brother's gecko could have figured this out.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2007 05:29 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or you can flip it around, and assume FTK was sharing with us the profound insight that the nonreligious tend *not* to Creationists. Brilliant.
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,21:17

reposted from Pharyngula:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting that most of the comments on this thread are from atheists. Evolution...atheism. The two *always* seem to kinda go hand in hand, no? If ya don't like the god thing, you've obviously gotta hang with the evolutionists regardless of whether they're right or not.

Of course, you'll always have a few like Humburg to parade around.

Posted by: Forthekids | April 3, 2007 04:27 PM |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forthekids, please learn how to count. Your comment was number 123. There were 122 comments before you. Those 122 comments came from about 119 different people. Of them, even if you include the buddhist as an atheist, only 55 identified as atheists. 55 of 119 is 46%, Therefore, you were wrong to say "most of the comments on this thread are from atheists."

Posted by: steve s | April 3, 2007 10:15 PM |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The atheists, in case anybody wants to check behind me, were Nicole the Wonder Nerd
Azkyroth
Flex
Eamon Knight
Dianne
Beren
Bob
Millimeter Wave
Dr. Frank
Amenhotep
Paul
thwaite
Grimmstail
Sanguinity
John
Speedwell
Mark UK
Dan
Richard Uhrich
Simon
Jujuquisp
Woodwose
Sciencebreath
Ha Milton
wjv
Steve Smith
Fatboy
Andre Izecson
xebecs
N
Keanus
Richard Harris, FCD
Brian
Berlzebub
Ros
Commissarjs
Brock Tice
clevo
ZacharySmith
Richard
kemibe
Paul
josh
Jane E Valentine, F.C.D.
Alex
marijane
Captured Shadow
rmhj
Bossy Joe
Richard(re his dad)
Martin C
Thickslab
Margaret
James Orpin
Carolyn
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 03 2007,21:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,17:58)
Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .[/quote]
Proof that no bible = no morality.


*Hides Grandma*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, when it comes to a conflict between the wee-wee and the noggin, the wee-wee wins every time.

I was designed that way.

:)
Posted by: bystander on April 03 2007,21:24

Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:46)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that it is dishonest stupidity is not an excuse. If you support the minority position and blog on it, it is your responsibility to ensure that your side covers all of the bases. We see EF, NFL, SLoT and the rest of the Creationist cannards being brought up again and again without the criticisms being addressed. When a substantial (substantial in the number of pages not content) piece of creationist/ID work is produced the PT crowd will fisk it in no time flat. Isn't it dishonest of the ID to only pick and choose to what they respond. Isn't it dishonest of the people like FtK to not take them to task for not responding.

Michael

- I personally think that there is nothing wrong in a non-expert questioning an expert but you do have to listen to the answer.
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,21:28

An interesting comment on that Pharyngula thread



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think my comment will be seen by many, but here goes...
I am an MD and a neurologist. I am appalled by Michael Egnor.
As a brain surgeon, he should know better than anyone how awful a job the ventricular system of the brain is. The Aqueduct of Sylvius, through which all the spinal fluid flows, is thin as a hair. Not surprisingly it often clogs, messing up the function of the whole brain(I won't even venture a guess how many such cases he must have seen in his career). If a human engineer built something like this he would get fired on the spot.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Posted by: mndarwinist | April 3, 2007 09:21 PM |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was reading at a coffeeshop in Chapel Hill when a friend of mine came in with a 13 year old girl. My friend had been hired to help the girl with homework and such. The girl was adorable and friendly, but she had a really annoying, kind of 5-year-old way of talking. I asked my friend if there was something wrong, and she said that the girl had been born with some kind of clog in this spinal cord duct, and she had numerous developmental disabilities as a result.

Really intelligent design, huh.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 03 2007,21:29

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2007,20:40)
Atheists comprise approximately 10% of the US population. And yet over 50% of the US population accepts the theory of evolution. Call it fifty. Let's see then, if we assume that all atheists accept evolution, that means that 44% of American non-atheists accept evolution. Hand-in-hand? I don't think so.
Geez. Use your head. My brother's gecko could have figured this out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ironically enough, it was a very similar observation on my part that played a part in PZ getting all pissed off at me over at PT . . . . . .

If we need at least half the population to win a political fight, and if at least two out of every three of that half of the population are theists, then it would seem that we, uh, need the political support of those theists to win.  And screaming "religion is stupid!!!!" at them at every opportunity, probably isn't going to, um, do anything useful to gain that political support.

I bet even a gecko could figure that out.
Posted by: stevestory on April 03 2007,21:44

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,15:49)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve Story and I are both north of 6'2....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I'm only 6'.

Wouldn't be much good in a fight at the moment. One good shot to the liver and I'd crumble like feta chese.

FtK said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm a 5'10" blond.
...
Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it's reasonable for FtK to think of us as stereotypical scientists, I suppose it's reasonable for us to think of her as a stereotypical blonde, isn't it?

Works for me.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 03 2007,21:47

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2007,20:08)
This is actually starting to look like some kind of fetish of yours, Lenny...

Well, that and that whole reptile thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ya know, I guess I just have a soft spot in my heart for scaley cold-blooded unfeeling unemotional creatures, like, uh, snakes and fundies.

:)


Actually, since my teen days, I always considered a conservative religious girl a good score ---- several of my early girlfriends were church girls (my father was a Nazarene minister at the time).  So uptight and so repressed, but once that repression fell away, oooooh la la . . . . . . . .

They were also pretty easy marks, since church doctrine taught that holding a sin in your heart was just as bad as acting it out in reality . . . So I'd say to her, "Surely you must at least have THOUGHT about what it would be like to, uh, ya know, do it" . .  and when she tentatively replied, "Well, yes . . . ", then the deal-closer was "Well then heck, you've already sinned in your heart, so what difference does it make anymore if you go ahead and do it -- you already need forgiving anyway, right?"

Worked every time.

(big fat evil grin)
Posted by: blipey on April 03 2007,23:00

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awesome!  We have the female version of DaveTard.  Threatening violence in response reasoned argument....  That's awesome!

You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister.  Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws).
Posted by: BWE on April 04 2007,00:34

Quote (blipey @ April 03 2007,23:00)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awesome!  We have the female version of DaveTard.  Threatening violence in response reasoned argument....  That's awesome!

You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister.  Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. I read that differently. Maybe lenny's getting to me.
Posted by: Louis on April 04 2007,06:51

Hey FTK,

I still want to discuss science with you if you are up for it. My question was perhaps a little unfair, I was being slightly cheeky I admit. How about you pick a topic and we can discuss it? Sound fair? If it's outside my expertise (and a lot is) I'll happily admit it and try to find you someone who can give better info than I can.

Please discuss the science FTK and ignore the banter. After all you've posted to this thread since I posted my request to discuss the science, and yet you haven't started any scientific discussion at all. It's possible you missed my post, so I'm restating my offer.

Louis

P.S. Please refrain from silly stereotypical nonsense like "all science types are weak little nerds", I would hope that as you are a serious person here to discuss serious science you wouldn't need to resort to such cheap tactics.
Posted by: Louis on April 04 2007,06:58

Albatrossity2,

Yeah when one has all the answers already it is kinda hard to have a discussion. But I'm an optimist. I live in hope!

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

Lenny,

There's nothing like a good bit of repression and guilt to get the juices flowing. It's like Woody Allen said "Is sex dirty? Sure, but only if you do it right!".

I think it's a testament to just how fucked up we are as a species that the most enjoyable life affirming act we can commit is regarded as "dirty". Not only that a huge number of people get more excited the more "dirty" they think it is!

Weird.

Louis
Posted by: Darth Robo on April 04 2007,07:21

"I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . . "

Oh, Lenny!  Have some standards, please!  :(
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 04 2007,08:40

I suspect that Lenny et al. have given FtK plenty of ammunition so that she can now focus on how "offensive" we all are, and thus continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science. Even on her own blog it was hard to keep her on track; as is typical of the ID/creationists she would focus on some small detail, comment on that extensively , and repeatedly ignore the bigger questions about the science and/or her lack of understanding about reality. Sometimes she would even start two or three new threads with a new blog post, apparently in the vain hope that I would forget about the old outstanding questions that she was ignoring. With all of the comments here about body shapes and sizes, even if she shows up here again, there is no chance that she will even mention science.

But all of this attention has had some good effects; she is apparently so busy reading here and commenting elsewhere that she is ignoring her own blog. Nothing "new" has appeared there in a couple of days. Or maybe Luskin and Egnor haven't posted on ENV (gotta love that acronym!) for a couple of days...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 04 2007,10:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 04 2007,08:40)
But all of this attention has had some good effects; she is apparently so busy reading here and commenting elsewhere that she is ignoring her own blog. Nothing "new" has appeared there in a couple of days. Or maybe Luskin and Egnor haven't posted on ENV (gotta love that acronym!) for a couple of days...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now that the Antichrist PZ Myers has now devoted < a whole thread > to uh, honoring Mommy FTK, we can expect her to get even busier today.
Posted by: Louis on April 04 2007,11:48

Arden,

Perhaps they are wise words. It really doesn't take a genius to understand the very basics of any topic. Which immediately  begs the question as to why Behe, Dembski, Berlinski....allllll the way down the educational line to DaveScott, O'Brien, and FTK etc simply don't.

One would have thought that such a "damning indictment" would, if true of all biology (which let's be honest it ain't), demonstrate a fortiori that the aforementioned ID|Cists were morons of the first stripe.

Is there no end to the dumb these people exhibit?

Louis
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on April 04 2007,12:01

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,10:49)
Writing in Latin doesn't make you sound any smarter, Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Writing in any language does not make you sound smart, Arden.
Posted by: Louis on April 04 2007,12:15

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,19:01)
Writing in any language does not make you sound smart, Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all? Just more of your usual asinine one liners from a mind as shallow as a puddle of dried spit then? Thought so.

Will someone wake me up when these dishonest, pig ignorant ID creationists-masquerading-scientists actually do something interesting and significant?

On that subject: FTK, any science you want to discuss or is Albatrossity2 correct in his estimation?

Louis
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on April 04 2007,12:24

Quote (Louis @ April 04 2007,12:15)
Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all?

...

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,12:28

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,12:24)
Quote (Louis @ April 04 2007,12:15)
Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all?

...

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apart from the parts of biology that contain math and physics..
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 04 2007,12:33

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,12:24)
I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course you do. I also believe that you will defend that position just as efectively as ftk did (no more-no less).
Posted by: Louis on April 04 2007,12:46

And on what basis do you or FTK make such a claim?

You do realise that simple reiteration of your claim in English doesn't constitute evidence don't you?

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on April 04 2007,15:32

By the way, many of the things I'm moving from here to the Bathroom Wall don't violate any rules, I'm moving them to keep them in context with some posts which do.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,15:33

Ohhhhh - the bathroom wall is using its urinal cake powers to draw the off topic posts in.


Bye, Robert!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 04 2007,19:47

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 04 2007,08:40)
I suspect that Lenny et al. have given FtK plenty of ammunition so that she can now focus on how "offensive" we all are, and thus continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that FTK would continue to focus on how "offensive" everyone is (like she did with her very first posts), and would continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science (like she said she would in her very first posts), even if I et al had never even been born.  (shrug)

I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value.  Nothing more.  A few years ago, they were a serious threat, not to science, but to the very core of democracy.  Back then, it was worthwhile (indeed, vital)to fight them.

Now, they are just a sewing circle, and I am just laughing at their antics.

If you think you are going to change them with scientific discussion, well, good luck to you.  I've been fighting them for 25 years, and I never found "science" very useful to do it.  After all, this fight simply isn't about science -- none of the IDers were won to ID because of science, and none of them will be won AWAY from it because of science, either.

But by all means enjoy yourself trying.  :)
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,20:47

"I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value.  Nothing more."

Jeez, Lenny, I was just thinking the same thing about this blog.  

I've been highly entertained the last couple days watching you guys act like complete goofballs.  Some of you are just weird, but a few of you are actually pretty funny.

But, Dave's right.  I really should be getting back to my own blog and work on my review of the Humes lecture.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,20:49

Or, you can ask science questions of scientists, rather than theologians...



P.S - isn't it great how all your posts here go through, instantly?
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,20:53

Wouldn't discussions about actual science be kind of out of place in this forum?  I don't see much serious stuff being discussed around here.  

But, I can stick around and shoot the shit with ya for a while.

How old are you Richard?  Just curious.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:01

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:53)
Wouldn't discussions about actual science be kind of out of place in this forum?  I don't see much serious stuff being discussed around here.  

But, I can stick around and shoot the shit with ya for a while.

How old are you Richard?  Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm 33.

There are some very heavy hitters here from quite a broad array of sciences, I'm a, er, "captain of industry" myself but its crass to boast about ones achievements and even more crass to use paralepsis.

Seriously, feel free to ask any science questions. The guys and girls will try their best. You can can go down the "evolution can't explain XXXXX" road if you like. Just be mindful that ID doesn't explain anything

PS ARDEN IS GAY.
Posted by: stevestory on April 04 2007,21:10

There are members of this forum who are biologists, physicists, geneticists, microbiologists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, engineers, programmers, a girl from the NIH...there are frigging linguists here, for chrissakes. We got everything. You wanna talk about a scientific question? Just ask. AFDave's been gone for like 2 months. We need a little scientific red meat to chew on.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 04 2007,21:11

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:12

Isn't HeroIsReal a Numerologist?

*Braces for impact*
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:16

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Oh - he's here now"

*places hand over phone mouthpiece*

Um, Lenny, it's the U.N. - they're asking if you could be a 'Goodwill Ambassador' and sort out this whole Middle East thing... Is that okay, or will it conflict with you teaching at charm school?
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,21:23

Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,21:10)
There are members of this forum who are biologists, physicists, geneticists, microbiologists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, engineers, programmers, a girl from the NIH...there are frigging linguists here, for chrissakes. We got everything. You wanna talk about a scientific question? Just ask. AFDave's been gone for like 2 months. We need a little scientific red meat to chew on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darlin', the last time I started asking questions in a science forum, I became addicted to that forum for 2 1/2 years.  

My husband actually suggested that I change my screen name from FtK to OCD.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 04 2007,21:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,21:16)
Is that okay, or will it conflict with you teaching at charm school?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some people are worth being polite to, some ain't.

FTK, ain't.  Neither is Paley. Both for much the same reasons.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:25

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:23)
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,21:10)
There are members of this forum who are biologists, physicists, geneticists, microbiologists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, engineers, programmers, a girl from the NIH...there are frigging linguists here, for chrissakes. We got everything. You wanna talk about a scientific question? Just ask. AFDave's been gone for like 2 months. We need a little scientific red meat to chew on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darlin' the last time I started asking questions in a science forum, I became addicted to that forum for 2 1/2 years.  

My husband actually suggested that I change my screen name from FtK to OCD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowledge is like that.. nothing wrong with it considering your serach for truth IMHO.
Posted by: stevestory on April 04 2007,21:33

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,22:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,21:16)
Is that okay, or will it conflict with you teaching at charm school?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some people are worth being polite to, some ain't.

FTK, ain't.  Neither is Paley. Both for much the same reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevertheless, you have to be respectful of her while she's here. It's the best way to avoid flame wars and get to substantive issues. Several people here are waiting for her to bring up a scientific topic. They want some exercise.
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,21:36

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:37

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are accountable to yourself, of course.
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,21:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,21:37)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are accountable to yourself, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL,  and how are you doing with that self-accountability thing, Richard?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,21:44

I do some good things, I do some bad things. I'd rather just do good things, but bad things seem like fun at the time. I am dissapointed with myself when I do bad things. I appreciate that my concepts of good and bad may be different to other peoples.

But, if you'd like to quiz me, you have the power to open a new thread. Our considerable scientific prowess awaits your enquiring mind.
Posted by: stevestory on April 04 2007,21:45

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,22:36)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're really annoying, we will ban you. After a few hundred posts. Pretty much just don't straight-up insult people. Although Robert O'Brien's done that about a hundred times and I haven't banned him yet. He's kind of amusing, with his little cynical hors d'oeurves. If you want to talk about science, we'll be off to the races. Anybody can talk about their cultural/political opinions.  What we want is some science. Red meat. What's the best argument for ID, FtK? Second Law of Thermo? Information Theory? Probability of assembling a random protein? Best paper supporting ID? Come on, give us something besides your little social observations.
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,21:57

"Pretty much just don't straight-up insult people."

I don't "straight-up" insult people.  It's just not in me.

But, I'm really not into chatting about science with ya.  I've been doing that gig for years in other pro-evolution forums, and I think I've heard just about every argument for and against ID and evolution numerous times now.  

I find it much more interesting trying to figure out what makes you people tick.  You're such a snarly bunch of folks.
Posted by: blipey on April 04 2007,21:59

FTK doesn't have anything but social observations and she will never discuss science because she doesn't even know where to start.  From some of the comments on her blog one would think she never even wandered into a science book in her home-school.

Her comment saying she can't discuss science because last time she tried she struck around long enough to learn something is telling.  Of course, that's my own interpretation of her comment, but shes free to tell me I'm wrong.

So far we have:

1.  I can't discuss science because none of you people really want to discuss science.  (Even though we've asked you to discuss science numerous times)

2.  I can't discuss science because I find it interesting.

Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?
Posted by: blipey on April 04 2007,22:09

FTK:

A little helpful info on this particular board.  While serious science can be discussed here (and certainly is), this is the "blow-a-little-steam" place.

You seem to think that science is seriously discussed in all pro-ID forums, though there is very little evidence of this.  Most of the peope on this board have tried to discuss science seriously in many of your favorite type places: UD, OE, even Joe G.'s place, AiG, etc.

Since exactly zero discussion can take place in these forums, they come here to discuss the science and, more often, the idiocies of those places where they are not allowed to comment (and not allowed to provide rational content).

Try to take that into consideration (not just the behavior--the reason for it) when visiting.
Posted by: Ftk on April 04 2007,22:42

"Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?"

Not a problem, blipey.  Here are your last 8 of 10:

I can’t discuss science with you because...

8.  Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia.

7.  I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”.  God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain.

6.  Atheists scare the bejesus out of me.

5.  J-Dog keeps referring to me as someone with an “expansive backside”.

4.  Dave has already offered everything he’s got in defense of common descent, and I still think it’s a crock.

3.  I’m afraid k.e. will expect me to “lickalottapussie”.

2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).

1.  I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me.  That would be a fate worse than death.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 04 2007,23:06

Heh.  A couple of those were even funny.  A little.

Since you don't know enough to talk science and you're not really funny enough to sustain the comedy schtick, you could just be SOL.

But, hey, if you own a guitar, you could always take a digipic of your ax and post it on the muso thread.

You don't actually have to be able to play it any better than you can talk science or make funny.  You just have to be able to point and click.

There must be something you're good for, when you're not whining.

Maybe Lenny will take a hit for the team and let us know...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 04 2007,23:11

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,22:42)
2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too Late.

I'll dress you up in lingerie and make you dance for me.
Posted by: k.e on April 04 2007,23:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 05 2007,05:44)
I do some good things, I do some bad things. I'd rather just do good things, but bad things seem like fun at the time. I am dissapointed with myself when I do bad things. I appreciate that my concepts of good and bad may be different to other peoples.

But, if you'd like to quiz me, you have the power to open a new thread. Our considerable scientific prowess awaits your enquiring mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHAHAHA PROBE ME WITH YOUR ENQUIRING MIND *snicker* RTH IS GAY!
Posted by: Kristine on April 04 2007,23:37

Whoa, I sure came late to this party!  
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)

"Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?"

Not a problem, blipey.  Here are your last 8 of 10:

I can’t discuss science with you because...

8.  Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I'm an australiopithicine.
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
7.  I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”.  God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what really counts is who's at the bottom. As Gould said, we live in the age of bacteria, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
6.  Atheists scare the bejesus out of me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But after the beJesus is gone, you're an atheist, and there will be no more fear.

Come with us. Drink the ambrosia. It is good.
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
5.  J-Dog keeps referring to me as someone with an “expansive backside”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I saw that cartoon. Now I admit I feel weird for once calling Dembski a "lost soul!"
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HANDS OFF!
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
1.  I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

*Throws her copy of Das Kapital at Ftk*
Posted by: k.e on April 04 2007,23:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  I’m afraid k.e. will expect me to “lickalottapussie”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I DID SO NOT!

I asked if your were ambidexterous .......RTH would give his right arm to be bidexterous
Posted by: BWE on April 05 2007,00:23

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,22:42)

I can’t discuss science with you because...

8.  Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


can't argue with you there


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

7.  I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”.  God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now, Biologists are pretty darn good though, right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6.  Atheists scare the bejesus out of me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You weren't using that bejesus anyway were you?
Posted by: blipey on April 05 2007,00:29

I'm not sure any of those were even mildly funny.  Oh well; I wouldn't expect anything more.  She doesn't know why the first two were funny in the first place.

FTK, you sure do go to a lot of trouble (as most creationists do) to be seen and heard without having anything at all to say.  Why do you think this is?

I mean, I know why I go to a lot of trouble to be seen and heard.  It's my job.  But, I'm always baffled by people who seek noteriety just for noteriety's sake.

We've all seen your blog.  We've "discussed" with you.  Why do you constantly hang around while adding nothing to the discussion?  Can't resist being the little ol' regular person who is beat down by those mean old aethiests?  (Well, except for those of us like Wesley who aren't aethiests)

You sure do seem to have a low opinion of people with scince degrees.  Why is that?  Do you think they're stoopid?  Why would you think that lay people have a better grasp of the technical issues in biology?

Really, I'd like to know why you think this in a meta-way.

Why do you think there are experts in any field?  (Music, acting, chemistry, plumbing, whatever)  Or, do you indeed think that there are not experts in any field?  Can lay people do just as well in any field in which they hold an opinion?

If you wanted to build a small 4 story office building, would you attempt this task on your own?  Why or why not?  If your son needed open heart surgery would you attempt it yourself?  Why or why not?  If there was a tricky question of astrophysics that needed to be answered to save life on this planet would you step up and be the woman for the job?  Why or why not?

Answers to this last paragraph interest me greatly.  I've asked them of many IDCers and none have ever answered me.  Why do you think that is?
Posted by: argystokes on April 05 2007,00:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure any of those were even mildly funny.  Oh well; I wouldn't expect anything more.  She doesn't know why the first two were funny in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I thought at least 4 of those were funny. We could I suppose discuss some really funny science-related stuff, like Noah's ark and the blind pussies.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 05 2007,00:57

I think I'm starting to understand Skatje Myers' opinion of FTK.

Incidentally, will we ever get to find out what peer-reviewed articles FTK has read?
Posted by: k.e on April 05 2007,01:03

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 05 2007,08:57)
I think I'm starting to understand Skatje Myers' opinion of FTK.

Incidentally, will we ever get to find out what peer-reviewed articles FTK has read?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.....AH...erm I mean ....ah she's here right?

PS FTK ISN'T GAY (She insists)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 05 2007,01:58

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.
 

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is very cool. Funny old thing that I cannot think of a single pro-ID site that has the guts to allow open coments, yet lots of pro-evolution sites do so. Doesn't that tell you something?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 05 2007,02:39

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2007,01:58)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.
 

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is very cool. Funny old thing that I cannot think of a single pro-ID site that has the guts to allow open coments, yet lots of pro-evolution sites do so. Doesn't that tell you something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then we have the ID faux outrage over "free exchange of ideas".
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 05 2007,02:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 05 2007,02:39)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2007,01:58)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.
 

I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is very cool. Funny old thing that I cannot think of a single pro-ID site that has the guts to allow open coments, yet lots of pro-evolution sites do so. Doesn't that tell you something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then we have the ID faux outrage over "free exchange of ideas".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teach the controversy! BUT FFS, ONLY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 05 2007,07:33

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Hey, Lenny,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, please don't talk to me, until and unless you are willing to discuss substantive issues.

Thanks.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 05 2007,07:36

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,22:42)
1.  I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me.  That would be a fate worse than death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, you'd be surprised.  Women **beg** me to father their children, ya know.

Photos first, though.
Posted by: Louis on April 05 2007,08:03

Hi FTK,

I've asked you for a science conversation a couple of times now. I'd like to repeat my request and extend that invitation to you once more. I'd love a rational, reasonable and reasoned conversation with someone about science or indeed any topic, so please join me! We can discuss your ideas about atheism and evolution if you wish, or we can discuss hard science ideas about abiogenesis or any other topic. Like I said if I don't know something about a topic, or if I cannot answer your questions, I'll admit it and point you to someone who can.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Unlike Lenny, who we both know is a total pervert (in the good way! ) my desire to engage you in conversation has nothing to do with you being a 5'10'' blonde by the way, although I was pleased to discovered that piece of information. I'm a 5'10'' swarthy demi-Greek from the UK if that helps, and although I am a scientist I doubt I fill your interesting stereotype of what a "science geek" should look or be like. My wife seems satisfied anyway! Looking forward to out fascinating science conversation.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 05 2007,10:45

And so ends another episode of Mystery Creationist Theatre 3000 starring FtK and her trusty sidekick, Nitwit the Newt.

I must say it was a fascinating discussion on "banning."  Never learned so much in one place about banning.

Typical creationist, however, FtK failed to address a single question about science.  Not one.  Oh, I forgot.  Creationists only answer questions under oath in a court of law, right Behe?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 05 2007,15:01

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
... I really should be getting back to my own blog and work on my review of the Humes lecture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK - Well, if you don't want to discuss science, maybe you could discuss your thoughts from the recent Humes Discussion.

Or, maybe you could "grant us immunity" and allow us to post on your blog
You could also discuss the following:

To:  U.S. Congress
We the people declare that we like big butts and, despite our best efforts, we cannot lie. This petition declares that you other brothers can't deny.

Sincerely,

< http://www.petitiononline.com/bigbutts/petition.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 05 2007,15:03

Here we go....

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/wisdom-of-egnor.html >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL, PZ is not going to like this particular entry. But, Egnor's right, philosophical naturalism is just simply sunk without Darwin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and science will surely benefit:

NEW PHYSICS
F (+/- designer effect) = M (+/- designer effect) x A (+/- designer effect)

New Chemsitry

CH4(+/- designer effect) + 2O2(+/- designer effect) ----->CO2(+/- designer effect) + 2H2O*(+/- designer effect)

*Note, didn't refract light before 3000 BDI (before design Inference)

EDIT: BETTER CHEMISTRY
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 05 2007,16:07

Here's < a peer-reviewed article > that is that rare bird, an article explicitly about "intelligent design" that hasn't been repudiated by the publisher. FtK can access it online, even, eliminating the need for a trip to the library.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 05 2007,18:46

Quote (J-Dog @ April 05 2007,15:01)
To:  U.S. Congress
We the people declare that we like big butts and, despite our best efforts, we cannot lie. This petition declares that you other brothers can't deny.

Sincerely,

< http://www.petitiononline.com/bigbutts/petition.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, who's the smarty pants?  I Do NOT like big butts!  Let me repeat: I DO NOT LIKE BIG BUTTS

#863 of the petition Is NOT me, as I Do Not Like BIG BUTTS!

Let me be clear on this:  Although DaveScot and William Dembski DO like big butts, I do NOT.

Thank you all for your attention.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 05 2007,19:40

Heddle you best stop stalking me now, and get out of here and stop putting me down for that nasty Bigg Butt Girl site.  

I did NOT sign up for #888 as affirming the beauty of a Bigg Cavewomen Butt.  That was NOT me, and I think that Homeland Security is going to be on the job finding out what person is forging MY signature on that nasty site and that person is now on a fast-track to ####! (Or at least Gitmo).

I would ask Dr. Dembski to help track down the miscreant(s), but unfortunately, it looks as if he does like BIG BUTTS.  Unlike me.
Posted by: Kristine on April 05 2007,23:10

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 05 2007,15:07)
Here's < a peer-reviewed article > that is that rare bird, an article explicitly about "intelligent design" that hasn't been repudiated by the publisher. FtK can access it online, even, eliminating the need for a trip to the library.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very nice! (I'll ignore the quip about her not going to the library.)  ;)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We know, for example, what the function of the Antikythera Device, a clockwork bronze assembly found in an ancient Greek shipwreck, was because we know the kinds of organisms that made it, we know the scientific, religious and navigational interests they had, we know about gears, and we know what they knew about the apparent motions of the heavens. … But suppose it was found by interstellar visitors long after humans went extinct. What would they know about it? Unless they had similar interest and needs to ourselves, or were already able to reconstruct from other contexts what human needs and interests were, for all they know it might be the extrusion of some living organism (which, in a sense, it is), just like a sand dollar. It might never occur to them to compare it to the apparent motion of the heavens from earth circa 500 BCE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add to this that so much of the world's creations have been discarded as unimportant "primitive" idols due to the cultural biases of the discoverers at the time, only to be finally examined and recorded by later curators as the background information of our cultural assumptions changed. Dembski's EF is so naive.

Love the Sam Spade motif throughout - with a great twist at the end. Great humor. So much of scholarly writing in the humanities is (even when it's not crazy postmodern bunk) obfuscative and dry.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,00:04

Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,23:37)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HANDS OFF!
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KRISTINE IS JEALOUS OF FTK'S LURVE FOR ME.

FIGHT FOR MY LOVE, BUT NOT TOO HARD AND FALL INTO EACH OTHERS ARMS AND MAKE OUT AT THE END.

THERE'S PLENTY OF AUTODICTOR TO GO ROUND.

HOO RAH!
Posted by: k.e on April 06 2007,01:33

WHAT GOES 'ROUND COMES 'ROUND HOMO.
NOW I'M AT MY FIGHTIN' WEIGHT-300LBS YOU'LL BE MY HO' AND FIT IN MY BUTT CRACK WITH ARDEN.-dt

HO RAH SLEEPER BI.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,13:33

WILL NOT TOUCH WITH BARGEPOLL:

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-say-we-boycott.html >


But I'll give props if anyone can sneak a "caught red-handed" in there.
Posted by: Ftk on April 06 2007,13:35

ROTFLMAO...I knew you'd like that one, Richard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,13:38

[Badboy Mode] Put your heels on a bring me a beer. [/Badboy Mode]
Posted by: Ftk on April 06 2007,13:44

[blushes]


[whispering to Kristine]

What's your going rate for a few quick shimmie lessons?

[/whispering to Kristine]
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 06 2007,13:50

FtK

Keep up the good work. A few more comments here and you will be become "one of them", forcing you to ban yourself from your own blog.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,13:52

Now now, Davescot (who is built like a middle weight boxer / NFL player (NFL = No Free lunch in this case)) will be jealous.

You just think you want me. You don't really.

PS ASK KRISTINE FOR BROOMSTICK LESSONS.
Posted by: Louis on April 06 2007,13:56

Hi FTK,

I thought I'd repeat my previous request to you, because well, you're all about the science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've asked you for a science conversation a couple of times now. I'd like to repeat my request and extend that invitation to you once more. I'd love a rational, reasonable and reasoned conversation with someone about science or indeed any topic, so please join me! We can discuss your ideas about atheism and evolution if you wish, or we can discuss hard science ideas about abiogenesis or any other topic. Like I said if I don't know something about a topic, or if I cannot answer your questions, I'll admit it and point you to someone who can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cheers

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on April 06 2007,14:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 06 2007,13:50)
FtK

Keep up the good work. A few more comments here and you will be become "one of them", forcing you to ban yourself from your own blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, you're right...the atheist mentality is oozing into my subconcious.  It's Richard's fault for luring me in here with his overwhelming sexual prowess.  

I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,14:05

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,14:02)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 06 2007,13:50)
FtK

Keep up the good work. A few more comments here and you will be become "one of them", forcing you to ban yourself from your own blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, you're right...the atheist mentality is oozing into my subconcious.  It's Richard's fault for luring me in here with his overwhelming sexual prowess.  

I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're beliefs are true, then examining them and other viewpoints should only ultimately make you more sure. The fact that theism discourages inspection should be a big red flag.


I will also note, that here in this den of iniquity you are afford freedom you wont extend to others on your blog.


PS do you own a garterbelt?
Posted by: Ftk on April 06 2007,14:12

"If you're beliefs are true, then examining them and other viewpoints should only ultimately make you more sure. The fact that theism discourages inspection should be a big red flag."

I've spent years examining the evidence for various religious beliefs.  If there is a religion that discourages inspection of their beliefs, then no doubt they are based on faith alone.  I do not base my beliefs in God on faith alone.  

You're right about one thing.  Examining other viewpoints has ultimately made me more sure about my own.


PS:  Yes, several - various colors...do you have a favorite?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 06 2007,14:13

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,14:02)
I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wrong, again >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,14:16

Fair enough - But I'm surprised you don't want to pick the brain of the AtBC science gestalt.

Do you have a favourite?... it probably depends on your skin tone. We'll have to try a few.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,14:23

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 06 2007,14:13)
Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,14:02)
I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wrong, again >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PhhHhh!

He's completely cured now!

< http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/06/ted-haggard-cured/ >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 06 2007,15:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,13:52)
Now now, Davescot (who is built like a middle weight boxer / NFL player (NFL = No Free lunch in this case)) will be jealous.

You just think you want me. You don't really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell her you want to destroy the American family and institute mandatory Islamoatheism in public schools. That should turn her off.
Posted by: Kristine on April 06 2007,16:29

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,12:44)
[blushes]


[whispering to Kristine]

What's your going rate for a few quick shimmie lessons?

[/whispering to Kristine]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not going to believe your luck. It's all in the knees.

However my price is high. It involves a certain Dembsknee.

Psst. I'm really a guy. Don't tell Richard.
Posted by: Kristine on April 06 2007,16:39

And in case it's not obvious, that is a call to use the < proposed new filter >. This is a test.

What did you think of Wes's article, Ftk?
Posted by: Ftk on April 06 2007,20:19

I think it sucks...

Filter that.
Posted by: stevestory on April 06 2007,20:25

What part of Wes's argument sucks? Where was Wes's reasoning poor?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,20:46

Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2007,20:25)
What part of Wes's argument sucks? Where was Wes's reasoning poor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The whole not evidence for the bible / god / young Earth bit.


I guess flirtytime is over.
Posted by: stevestory on April 06 2007,21:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,21:46)
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2007,20:25)
What part of Wes's argument sucks? Where was Wes's reasoning poor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The whole not evidence for the bible / god / young Earth bit.


I guess flirtytime is over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes writes good papers. Elsberry Shallit 2003 is a classic. If there are holes in the logic, I'd like to hear what they are.
Posted by: argystokes on April 06 2007,21:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,18:46)
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2007,20:25)
What part of Wes's argument sucks? Where was Wes's reasoning poor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The whole not evidence for the bible / god / young Earth bit.


I guess flirtytime is over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh, she posted at what, 8:30 her time on a Friday night? Chalk it up to crankiness-inducing wine coolers. It'll be good when she comes back tomorrow renewed and ready to discuss the paper's flaws.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 06 2007,21:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,14:02)
I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I noted before, back in my younger days, conservative Christians were indeed one place where I went, where no man had gone before.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 06 2007,21:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,00:04)
FIGHT FOR MY LOVE, BUT NOT TOO HARD AND FALL INTO EACH OTHERS ARMS AND MAKE OUT AT THE END.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, I sooooooo want to see the DVD . . . . .
Posted by: Kristine on April 06 2007,22:10

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,19:19)
I think it sucks...

Filter that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Done. That's pretty disrespectful, a slap in my face for no reason, as well as an obvious evasive maneuver. I filter that you do not want to discuss the science.

Whereas I do. Wes and John outline a scenario of deception that Dembski's EF is inadequate in teasing out. It seems that it's impossible to separate "design" from the motivation for design when you don't already have the answer that you are looking for. The EF is a retro-fit, rather than an actual process that can accurately find answers that are not already known.

What say others? I am grasping this at all? As you know I'm not a scientist. I enjoyed the paper, and we can continue this thread to discuss this with or without Ftk.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 06 2007,23:02

Okay, I read the paper through, and I thought it was a very clearly laid out indictment. FTK, if you think the paper 'sucks', I think we're entitled to an explanation about why it sucks.

No more Ann Coulter bullshit. Explain your reasoning like a grownup.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 06 2007,23:42

OK, you made me read the paper, too.

I have a question for FtK.  Dembski published the EF book years ago. What, five years or so?  Or more?

Since Dembski published a means to detect design, and this is a question for FtK, how many designs have been detected or proven by the EF?

There must be ten zillion biological thingies out there that were designed by the Great Designer, He who must not be named and for the sake of this argument I won't invoke the designer.

So, FtK, I'm curious to know what biological systems in the past decade have been proven or even indicated to have been designed based on Dembski's EF.

I know that I'm only a poor chemist but for the life of me I've searched high and low and I can't find a single example.  Not one.  Not a single one.  Not even a whiff.  A snippet.

Educate me, FtK, I sit at your feet.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2007,23:45

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 06 2007,23:42)
OK, you made me read the paper, too.

I have a question for FtK.  Dembski published the EF book years ago. What, five years or so?  Or more?

Since Dembski published a means to detect design, and this is a question for FtK, how many designs have been detected or proven by the EF?

There must be ten zillion biological thingies out there that were designed by the Great Designer, He who must not be named and for the sake of this argument I won't invoke the designer.

So, FtK, I'm curious to know what biological systems in the past decade have been proven or even indicated to have been designed based on Dembski's EF.

I know that I'm only a poor chemist but for the life of me I've searched high and low and I can't find a single example.  Not one.  Not a single one.  Not even a whiff.  A snippet.

Educate me, FtK, I sit at your feet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


9 years, and still unused:

< http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0 >
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 07 2007,00:18

FtK,

So, Evil Richard says that the EF hasn't been used in 9 years in spite of 10 bazillion biological thingies to apply it to, disregarding the hanging participle.

Ten bazillion biological thingies that "could have been designed" but not a single case to demonstrate.

FtK, please contact Central Control and ask for an answer.  We await your reply.
Posted by: jeannot on April 07 2007,02:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,20:19)
I think it sucks...

Filter that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think God sucks.

But don't ask me why.  ;)
Posted by: Louis on April 07 2007,04:06

FTK,

I am, I have to say, a little shocked by your comment about Wesley's and John's paper.

I thought you were here to discuss the science, something I have openly offered to do with you very politely at least three times now. I'm a working scientist, it's my day, night and weekend job, and unless we were mucking around in the lab and being very very frivolous the description of someone's work as "it sucks" simply wouldn't happen. Even on those rare occasions when one so airily dismisses someone else's work, one gives reasons. To that end, as you are someone who claims to read the primary literature and is "all about the science", I think as a courtesy you owe us all an explanation of precisely why that paper sucks.

Thanks very much.

Louis

P.S. Oh and the rest of you: Arden is super gay, Rich is a girly man and hung like a Chinese mouse. I myself am hung like a 6 year old boy i.e. about 4 and a half foot and weighing in at about 60 pounds. You all know that FTK has come here to be my mistress because she's ignoring my questions and that's what girls do in the playground at primary school when they like you. I've also been doing wheelies on my bike and press-ups outside Kristine's house, and to be blunt, she's my mistress too. No one can resist press-ups and wheelies. I may give her a jammy dodger, which is a biscuit and not a sexually transmitted infection. Sorry to break it to all of you so harshly.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 07 2007,05:28

I think that I must defend FtK here. Nobody else on the ID side has said anything that does a substantially better job of responding to Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Her reply at least avoids the all-too-common obscurantism engaged in by ID creationism advocates when dealing with criticism. FtK's reply is straight-up emotion with no veneer of pseudo-intellectualism, an honest confession of stance without the pretense of rationalization or justification. And for that I think I should salute her.
Posted by: bystander on April 07 2007,06:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,16:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 06 2007,23:42)
OK, you made me read the paper, too.

I have a question for FtK.  Dembski published the EF book years ago. What, five years or so?  Or more?

Since Dembski published a means to detect design, and this is a question for FtK, how many designs have been detected or proven by the EF?

There must be ten zillion biological thingies out there that were designed by the Great Designer, He who must not be named and for the sake of this argument I won't invoke the designer.

So, FtK, I'm curious to know what biological systems in the past decade have been proven or even indicated to have been designed based on Dembski's EF.

I know that I'm only a poor chemist but for the life of me I've searched high and low and I can't find a single example.  Not one.  Not a single one.  Not even a whiff.  A snippet.

Educate me, FtK, I sit at your feet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


9 years, and still unused:

< http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had a read of the thread you linked to and have the opinion that Jason like most other ID proponents haven't read the Dover transcripts just other's reactions to it. They seem to focus on just the stack of papers and the astrology bits. Anybody who read the entire transcript can see that Behe made an idiot of himself through his entire testimony and I think that the peer review and tonne of dirt moments are even better. It is the funniest read I had all year. Anybody who hasn't read them, you also need to read the examination of the scientists as well before hand as it set's the scene for Behe.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 07 2007,07:56

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2007,05:28)
FtK's reply is straight-up emotion with no veneer of pseudo-intellectualism, an honest confession of stance without the pretense of rationalization or justification. And for that I think I should salute her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, occasionally FtK can break out of hypocrisy mode and tell us exactly what she really thinks (e.g. equating "Darwinists" with jerks, and then telling me that she really meant that I was a jerk).

I agree with Wes; this short but sweet critique is honest, and so much more readable than the standard blather about ID, IC, EFs, and all of that other stuff that allows them to talk about God without mentioning him by name.
Posted by: k.e on April 07 2007,08:56

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2007,13:28)
I think that I must defend FtK here. Nobody else on the ID side has said anything that does a substantially better job of responding to Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Her reply at least avoids the all-too-common obscurantism engaged in by ID creationism advocates when dealing with criticism. FtK's reply is straight-up emotion with no veneer of pseudo-intellectualism, an honest confession of stance without the pretense of rationalization or justification. And for that I think I should salute her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.

But I'm sure if she said all that on the witness stand in Dover under oath...the outcome would have been 180 degrees opposite ……to the legally binding precedent that has effectively sunk ID/creationism as science for ALL TIME...... even Dembski acknowledges that. (Thank your god for me FTK)

Ftk inspite of her rabid frothing seems half honest at least.

The best she can hope for now is brow beating the hoi polloi and cheer leading her fundy heroes onto breaking the law.

I’d like to see that DVD *snicker*.
Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,10:04

Good grief...would you people mellow out.  I was just playing around.  Truth be told I've only glanced at the paper.  I've been too busy flirting with Richard.

For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.  

I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth).  That's fine, but I'm certainly not going to come in here and feed your intense and somewhat twisted desire to bash creationists.

I'll read the paper within the next few days because I find this stuff fascinating, but I'll do it when I have time.  I used to immediately read and respond to so much crap thrown at me in another forum that my family darn near disowned me due to my obsession with this topic.  There were usually 10-20 people on average responding to me and I felt compelled to answer every single comment.  Dave can attest to the fact that I like to have the last word on any given subject.  Psycho, I know, but it's just who I am.  

I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.

[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  If you be nice to me, I‘ll put in a good word for you next time I talk to Dembski.]

[pss..Louis, just fyi, I am definitely attracted to the swarthy demi-Greek description, but at the moment Richard has my heart.  Though it does sound as if you are the true scientist and he is not, so there is hope for you yet because, truth be told, the real reason I hang out in these forums is that little nerdy science types turn me on.  (Don‘t tell anybody).]
Posted by: argystokes on April 07 2007,10:17

ftk,

Looking over your blog, it appears that you think Mike Egnor has some good ideas. Now, mostly he seems to be on the Darwin => eugenics train, which is obviously just meant to be bad PR for evolutionary theory. But he has made a couple of scientific claims. For one, he challenges PZ Myers,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How much new specified information can random variation and natural selection generate? Please note that my question starts with 'how much'- it's quantitative, and it's quantitative about information, not literature citations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But alas, he goes on to admit that it was a trick question, as he can't identify a way to meaningfully measure biological information:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My question about the information-generating capacity of RM+NS was rhetorical. I know you can't answer it. Now you know, too. The scientific debate about Darwin/ID turns on the issue of biological complexity. We are still struggling with the issue of how to quantify it. Information content seems the most promising, but, as my question demonstrates, it's deeply problematic. Empirical verification of your claim that RM+NS is sufficient to explain biological complexity is necessary for you your theory to be a 'fact'. As you have so clearly demonstrated, it's not a fact, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until Egnor can ask a meaningful question, his objections are (tautologically) spurious. Now, I can name new biological functions that can be generated by mutation and selection, and it would seem that this is all that is necessary for evolution to work, regardless of whether or not mathematics can be used to quantify the changes. Do you have any objections to mutation and selection as a viable mechanism for the generation of new biological structures and functions? Our former resident creationist does, but I think you'd be embarrassed to have him as an ally.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 07 2007,10:19

Ah, the Dembski Dodge.

"Oh, my, look at the time!  Pathetic levels of detail are so boring.  Rhally, they are."  *sound of little feet running into the distance*
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 07 2007,10:20

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,11:04)
I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, you found us out. Richard is our honeypot. Or, more accurately, was our honeypot until you outed him.  Now we are SOL until we can find a new one.  I suppose we could send k.e. out again, but he was never all that successful since he doesn't understand the difference between mysterious and downright incomprehensible.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Girl power?  Okay, I nickname thee "Fundie Spice"
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 07 2007,11:14

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.  

I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, she has no intention of ever again discussing science with anyone, anywhere. Because if she did try, it would immediately become apparent why she specializes in < "smarm and ooze" >, rather than science...

And you gotta love the projection that is so obvious in that second paragraph!
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2007,11:16

Phhhh carlsonjok; I've still got it.

Let's give FtK a chance to read the paper and get back to us, then we can have a freindly discussion. I'll also quiz her more about her lingerie.

*pats FtK's arse, playfully*
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 07 2007,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dare we ask which 'Truth' you're referring to?

Also, could you please tell us which peer-reviewed article(s) you've read, with some proof that you've read them?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 07 2007,12:03

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
 That's fine, but I'm certainly not going to come in here and feed your intense and somewhat twisted desire to bash creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice to see that you have the same massive raqging martyr complex that every other fundie seems to have.

Alas, like every other fundie, you seem to have an awfully inflated sense of your own self-importance.

Perhaps you'd care a lot less what everyone thought about you, if you realized how rarely anyone DOES.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 07 2007,12:07

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Au contraire, my blonde amazon, I am quite sure that NOBODY here thinks you will dive right in and discuss science.

Indeed, I am quite sure that everyone here thinks that ****no IDer***  will EVER dive right in and discuss science, anywhere, at any time.  Ever.  

None of them.  Not a one.  

Mostly because ID doesn't actually, ya know, HAVE any science to discuss. (shrug)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 07 2007,12:08

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
many of you seem completely blind to the truth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow. Would that be the truth of the gospel by any chance? Or similar ye olde textbook of knowledge? About that flood....
Posted by: Kristine on April 07 2007,12:10

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Unfortunately, I think that says it all.
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth being? Not everyone here is an atheist.

I do not understand not being interested in science and not interested in discussing or even learning about it. (But you know, I get a lot of that too from arty-lit types and that's why I'm turning my back on a future in the humanities.)

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I'll read the paper within the next few days because I find this stuff fascinating, but I'll do it when I have time.  I used to immediately read and respond to so much crap thrown at me in another forum that my family darn near disowned me due to my obsession with this topic.  There were usually 10-20 people on average responding to me and I felt compelled to answer every single comment.  Dave can attest to the fact that I like to have the last word on any given subject.  Psycho, I know, but it's just who I am.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay. I can relate to not understanding something the first time I read it. But you don't have to be deliberately dismissive.

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I would pass out with joy if any creationist just said, "I'm always going to believe in God but now I've become curious about the world and how it really works, and now I realize that we must have a means of knowing how we know things."

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  If you be nice to me, I‘ll put in a good word for you next time I talk to Dembski.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, speak to Dembski often? Well, I am the queen of sarcasm so that would have to be a pretty good word. ;)

Ftk, I never hate anyone - I don't even know what that feels like - and I am never anyone's enemy. But I wish you would understand that we are not, in the larger sense, fighting for a "side" but for something that benefits us all. I really don't care about other people's religious beliefs. Literally, I deal with all kinds of religious believers and it's not my job to go waving my disapproving finger in anyone's face. What I do think is important is defining clearly what we can say as a species is not true.

Christian believers who have not met a lot of people from other cultures/traditions tend to think that other religions are just different flavors of Christianity and that drives me nuts. So don't talk to me about "truth" because I could pick any number of faith traditions if I was inclined to, and it wouldn't resemble yours, Dembski's, or Egnor's. From what I've seen I have a lot of choices.

We're actually talking about falsification here. It seems to me that Dembski with his EF is exploiting - rather than honestly exploring - a legitimate question: how do we recognize intentionality? There are birds in Papua New Guinea that create nests that look man-made. A biologist would recognize them for what they are but suppose an archaeologist wouldn't. There's a place, perhaps, for a real EF, but it seems that Dembski backs off any real filter because he doesn't like the fact that he would be participating in, instead of refuting, the science of today. That I cannot understand.

If you honestly do speak to Dembski ask him how many of his sycophants at UD actually read his "Christian Theodicy" paper, because I did, and I certainly didn't say that it "sucked."
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,12:17

Respect is earned. If a scientist gives you a link to a scientific paper he wrote, and without reading it you say "It sucks.", you aren't going to earn much respect.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 07 2007,12:36

On < her own blog >, FtK discusses science with Jeremy, in her own inimitable style, after first blasting faculty members at SMU for refusing to debate IDiots at the recent revival held on their campus.

Since her devotion to open debate mysteriously does not extend to her own blog, I'll post my comment here, since I suspect it will never appear there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK wrote: I am able to completely separate the science from the religion implications, and I do not believe that something should be rejected as science solely due to the fact that it has religious implications.

Not solely. It is also rejected as science because it leads to no testable predictions. Which is exactly why scientists, of all religious persuasions, reject ID. Its religious implications are why it cannot be taught in public schools, but its lack of that critical attribute (leads to testable predictions) is why it is rejected as science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,12:39

"Christian believers who have not met a lot of people from other cultures/traditions tend to think that other religions are just different flavors of Christianity and that drives me nuts."

Kristine, do any of you realize how atheists in these pro-Darwin forums seem to adhere to a strict steroetype of what they believe an IDist to be (ie. a Christian "fundie" who has no experience outside of the sancuary of their own church).  I joke around about atheists, but I know plenty and some are very good friends, but they don't treat me the way I'm treated by atheists I find in these forums.  And, none of my Christian friends have any desire to establish a theocracy or destroy the wall of separation.  

All this nonsense I see flying around in cyberspace is more hysteria than reality.  Sure, there are those Christians who are loud and nasty,  just as there are atheists who are loud and nasty, but I certainly don't believe that the majority of us (Christians or atheists) agree with everything they say.

"So don't talk to me about "truth" because I could pick any number of faith traditions if I was inclined to, and it wouldn't resemble yours, Dembski's, or Egnor's. From what I've seen I have a lot of choices.""

How do you know what my faith tradition looks like?  Seriously.  Christians came at these issues from different angles, so I'm not sure you have me completely figured out by exchanging a few posts with me.  

When I wrote the word "truth", I'm was talking about the whole scope of this debate - not merely religious truth.  

Oh, btw, I've only emailed Dembski twice, and I'm not sure the man is particularly fond of me.  But, he hasn't kicked me out of the big tent just yet.
Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,12:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,11:16)
Phhhh carlsonjok; I've still got it.

Let's give FtK a chance to read the paper and get back to us, then we can have a freindly discussion. I'll also quiz her more about her lingerie.

*pats FtK's arse, playfully*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard stop!  You are seriously turning me on, and I just don't have time to play today.  Quit luring me back in here wondering what you're going to say next.  

I need to try to figure out how in the heck to cook a humongous ham for an Easter shindig at my house tomorrow.  I'm guessing you just stick the sucker in the oven for 2 or 3 hours, but I'm a absolutely horrendous cook who rarely opens the oven door, so I've got to try to find a recipe book around here somewhere...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2007,12:53

Read the paper and we'll have a 'date' later.

Dress to impress!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 07 2007,12:58

FTK, you should get some kind of Nobel Prize for ignoring awkward questions.

We've heard your "I discuss science all the time, I just won't discuss it with you guys 'cuz you're all a big bunch of meanies" alibi several times by now. Please, try something new.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I wrote the word "truth", I'm was talking about the whole scope of this debate - not merely religious truth.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean the debate in which you will not participate, and which you will not tolerate at your blog, right?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine, do any of you realize how atheists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You like throwing that word around as much as possible, I see.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
in these pro-Darwin forums
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pro-SCIENCE, dear. Please try and keep up.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
seem to adhere to a strict steroetype of what they believe an IDist to be (ie. a Christian "fundie" who has no experience outside of the sancuary of their own church)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're right, just because all the leading figures of ID and the great majority of its followers pretty much live up to that stereotype, I'm sure it's somehow horribly unfair to generalize. Find me some IDers who aren't motivated by either Jesus and/or DS's reactionary politics and I'll Repent My Wicked Ways. In the meantime, I think it's been pointed out to you by now that your 'Evolutionist = Atheist' equation is a lie.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I joke around about atheists, but I know plenty and some are very good friends, but they don't treat me the way I'm treated by atheists I find in these forums.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So it's cruel to ask you to answer questions and back up claims?

FTK, I think you will discover that the 'atheists' in this forum would treat you far better if you behaved honestly and abandoned nonsense like the 'Darwinism = Naziism' notions you peddle in lieu of actually, you know, discussing science. We've all seen that a million times and it doesn't exactly engender respect.

Read the article and come back with coherent observations and you'll have a better shot at respect.
Posted by: blipey on April 07 2007,13:14

Really, FTK, the paper isn't that long.  Instead of typing up 2 of your extremely boring comments, you could read the paper.  For someone who is SO interested in science (as you claim to be), it should be no problem to take a few minutes and read the paper.  Unless, of course, you have no intention of actually becoming informed on the issue.  Please don't tell us you'll read the paper when we know you aren't going to.

You promised several days ago on your own blog to post details about what you didn't like in the Hume lecture.  You have yet to do that, and you never will.  You don't like to talk about details--they screw up your story.  You like to make broad generalizations about how wrong other people are and then complain when others show  you IN DETAIL how wrong you are.

It's time to be an adult, FTK.
Posted by: argystokes on April 07 2007,13:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Find me some IDers who aren't motivated by either Jesus and/or DS's reactionary politics and I'll Repent My Wicked Ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 07 2007,13:22

Quote (argystokes @ April 07 2007,13:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Find me some IDers who aren't motivated by either Jesus and/or DS's reactionary politics and I'll Repent My Wicked Ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Point taken. Intelligent Design can proudly point to John Davison as one of its own.

So I have to revise the above:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Find me some IDers who aren't motivated by either Jesus and/or DS's reactionary politics and/or insanity and I'll Repent My Wicked Ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love it so!
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 07 2007,13:23

Yowzer!

Doesn't understand science.

Doesn't read.

Can't cook.

That would be three strikes.  You're out, FtK!  Batter up.

In between your posting of hundreds of lines of drivel, perhaps you could address a couple of sciency questions:

1.  How many articles describing the theory of ID were submitted to science journals by ID scientists in the past year?  (I'm sure your personal friend Dembski could explanatory filterize an answer for you.)

2.  How does ID explain speciation?  I must be missing something because I can't figure it out.

Thanks, FtK

p.s.  for the ham, if it's a cured ham it only needs warming through, but 20 minutes per pound at 350 degrees would do the trick.  Basting with apple cider will give it a nice glaze that's not too sweet, and it will keep the surface from drying out.  For a large ham covering it with foil will also keep the surface from drying out or over-browning.

For a large pork roast, you can braise it in a large roasting pan.  Sear the outside if you can in a large skillet, then place the roast in the roasting pan fat side up.  Add about an inch of dry white wine, or apple cider, or water.  Cover and bake at 350 for 20 minutes per pound plus 20 minutes.  Use an instant read thermometer to check the internal temp.  Above 160 and it's done.  If you want the surface brownd, remove the foil or cover about half way through cooking, although you'll get fat splatter in your oven.  Not a big deal, but it might smoke a little.
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,13:27

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 07 2007,13:36)
Not solely. It is also rejected as science because it leads to no testable predictions. Which is exactly why scientists, of all religious persuasions, reject ID. Its religious implications are why it cannot be taught in public schools, but its lack of that critical attribute (leads to testable predictions) is why it is rejected as science.[/quote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's true that Intelligent Design has no < explanatory power, > which is one of the reasons < it isn't science >, but it's not simply religious implications which keep it out of the science classroom. Lots of science has religious implications. ID is prohibited because it's a political movement to undermine evolutionary science for the benefit of certain flavors of christianity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

-Philip Johnson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 07 2007,13:43

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,12:39)
do any of you realize how atheists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, FTK, my dear, I'm not an atheist.

And I think you (and all other IDers) are utter fruitcakes.
Posted by: blipey on April 07 2007,13:57

Okay, FTK, here're a couple of softball questions from Wilkins / Elsberry:

The major problem with Dembski's EF is that it lacks a mechanism for dealing with foundational conditions.  Indeed, a slight change in what we know about starting conditions seems to change the entire conclusion of the EF.

1.  How is this not truly a problem for the EF?  Or, what changes would you make in the EF in order to address this problem?

Wilkins and Elsberry claim that we would need to know, to 100% accuracy, the starting conditions of an occurence or event in order to come to the conclusion of design (rarefied design in any case).  So:

2.  Is it possible to know with 100% accuracy these conditions?  If so, could you provide us with some calculations that show design since you have this wholely known set of data?  Or, if it is not possible, how can one successfully apply the EF?
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,14:02

Sitting around waiting for FtK to want to discuss the 'science' of Intelligent Design, I'm killing time by reading some old writings by Dembski and his critics. (I'd rather read ID 'papers', but they haven't even published any pretend papers < since Dover. >) Previously I've searched the ITSOC looking for an Information Theory researcher even mentioning Dembski. It almost never happens, because things like the Law of Conservation of Information are bogus. But I did find a piece by Jeff Shallit I hadn't read before. A < PDF of his expert testimony in Kitzmiller. >

Here's the conclusion about Dembski:

"William Dembski has not made a significant contribution to a mathematical or scientific understanding of design. His work is not regarded as significant by information theorists, mathematicians, statisticians, or computer scientists. He does not present his work in the generally-accepted fora for results in these fields. His mathematical work is riddled with errors and inconsistencies that he has not acknowledged; it is not mathematics, but pseudomathematics."
Posted by: blipey on April 07 2007,14:50

Hey FTK,

While I'd really like to discuss science with you here, amongst scientists that I can actually learn from, I have another option for you.

You claim to have spent decades, if not centuries, discussing science at forums all across the universe.  And it's a funny thing, I can't seem to find any of those places.  UD is certainly not it.  Your blog is certainly completely data-free.  In fact, if you google your name absolutely nothing sciency comes back.

So, if you could provide some links (or even email some copies of your science discussions), I'll leave you alone while I peruseyour wonderous scientific knowledge.

Deal?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2007,15:09

Let's not have too many challenges going at once.

FTK is a layperson, it's not her job to explain things to our satisfaction. I think a freindly chat around Wes' paper would be a great starting point?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 07 2007,15:18

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
...

For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.  

I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill...  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't expect you to discuss science here (at least not for long).

It is pretty much impossible to discuss science here and remain a fundamentalist (by which I mean interpreting Genesis literally), unless you become completely disshonest.

BTW, I doubt that you have ever really discussed science on other forums in any honest way. You may think that you have, but you have not.
Posted by: argystokes on April 07 2007,15:26

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,13:09)
Let's not have too many challenges going at once.

FTK is a layperson, it's not her job to explain things to our satisfaction. I think a freindly chat around Wes' paper would be a great starting point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds reasonable to me. FtK, you can forget my question about biological information etc. At least for now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 07 2007,15:28

ftk:

Which part of evolutionary theory do you have problems with? Common descent? The mechanisms? Both? And why do you have problems with them?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 07 2007,16:06

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2007,15:28)
ftk:

Which part of evolutionary theory do you have problems with? Common descent? The mechanisms? Both? And why do you have problems with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order to save FtK the trouble, and to help make sure that the holiday ham doesn't get burned, I can point you to some of the answers at her blog and elsewhere.

About halfway down the comment thread < here >, you can read her response to a similar question, where I asked her if she believed in microevolution, in common descent, or in macroevolution.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At 4:11 PM, aka...Forthekids said…

"1) microevolution (I assume that is Yes)"

Yes. I think the mechanisms of evolution are quite capable of making very significant changes in living organisms. But, evolution from one species to the next is highly questionable and not supported with near enough evidence, IMO. When it comes to the evolution of new body parts and vital organs, I am highly skeptical of what evolution is capable of.

"2) common descent (I assume that is also Yes, but am less sure about this one)"

That depends on your definition. Obviously I am a descendant of my grandparents, but I highly doubt whether every living creature evolved from that first living organism that initially dropped from the abyss.

"3) macroevolution (I assume that is !!!NO!!!)"

If you don't think I support macroev, what made you think I accept common descent? But, no, I don't think the empirical evidence comes even close to providing us with enough information to confirm macroev.

"For any of these three that you don't accept, is it because

a) you have specific scientific evidence to the contrary,

b) because you think that there is insufficient scientific evidence in favor,

c) because you think that this "idea is completely worthless to science",

d) or ???,

e) or some combination of the above?"

B & C for sure, and A if you consider how in the bloody #### the process got started. But, of course that goes much further than what evolution can answer. Yet, it's funny that we even consider the evolution of stars, planets, and everything else.

So, we are pretty much told that the entire universe evolved in some manner from virtually nothing. And, yes, I realize that the mechanisms of evolution that we have been discussing only apply to life on earth.

Anyway, I think there are plenty of arguments that provide scientific evidence to the contrary when we consider the whole scope of the evolutionary paradigm, but I'm not interested in getting started on that one because I've gone that route too many times in the past,and I've found that it is pointless to discuss these issues with a die hard evolutionist.

I have no desire to try to change you opinion so there is no point in wasting my time with it all again.

"I promise I won't ask again; this is just part of my ongoing struggle to find common ground by agreeing on a definition of terms."

Ask away, I'm pretty much an open book. But, if you repeat questions to often, I'm falling back on links. It gets maddening after a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She is pretty much clueless about the mechanisms, but certainly believes that the entire process is < random >.

As to WHY she has problems with them, you will get one answer from her, as noted above (there is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened, and plenty of evidence against it) and one answer from me (she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist).

And do read further down that comment thread to note that my last (unanswered) comment asks her for the "scientific evidence to the contrary" that she refers to above...

Hope this helps!
Posted by: jeannot on April 07 2007,16:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,15:09)
Let's not have too many challenges going at once.

FTK is a layperson, it's not her job to explain things to our satisfaction. I think a freindly chat around Wes' paper would be a great starting point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe it's a bit too sciency.
What about this: "how do you falsify ID"?

As not a single IDer, including Behe and Dembski, has ever answered that question, we may attend a premiere if FTK achieves that.
Who knows?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 07 2007,16:22

Thanks, Albatrossity 2.

Ms. FtK:

Here are two excellent essays that explore some of the evidence for common descent.

< 29 + Evidences for Macroevolution >

< Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics >
Posted by: Kristine on April 07 2007,17:29

Yes, Ftk, I realize that some atheists are jerks, and believe it or not I tell them so if they're being unreasonable. You are talking to someone who thinks peer pressure is a contact sport.

Whenever you want to discuss the paper, let me know. Then I'll know what you mean by the "truth" in this context. I guess it's hard not to make assumptions about what you mean when you don't answer concrete questions. I would be interested in your honest opinion if you're interested in giving it.
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,17:39

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 07 2007,17:06)
As to WHY she has problems with them, you will get one answer from her, as noted above (there is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened, and plenty of evidence against it) and one answer from me (she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About half the biologists in this country are christians who accept evolution. There are several dozen books written by christians who are biologists who explain how they remain christians while not denying obvious science. She could read those. Or she could ask the guy who runs this very board, who is a christian with multiple science degrees, how to do it.

But she would benefit more by reading a single textbook on evolution. I recommend something like < From DNA to Diversity >. No expertise required. It's readable to anyone who's had, say, a Bio 101 class in college. It's a little pricey. If that's a problem, she can privately email me and I'll quietly get someone to mail her one of their old Evo Bio textbooks.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 07 2007,18:16

Quote (Kristine @ April 07 2007,17:29)
Yes, Ftk, I realize that some atheists are jerks, and believe it or not I tell them so if they're being unreasonable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me yoo.

Just ask PZ.
Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,19:40

Only have a sec...

Dave, thanks for providing that link so that I don't have to keep repeating myself over and over, but this...

"(she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist)."

... is absolutely and positively false.  I do not believe this in any way, shape or form.  In fact, this is so not me that I am suppressing the urge to scream.  

First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does.

For instance, Jeremy (a regular at my blog) is a theistic evolutionist and buys into common descent and the whole nine yards.  He believes in God, and is certainly not an atheist.  The dude is a Christian, and after several private conversations with him, I've no doubt about his dedication to his belief in God.  We disagree about science, not the ultimate *reason* why we are Christians - though we do have different ideas regarding the term "faith".  

I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory.  

I have a problem accepting macroev. and common descent as "facts".  Btw, I've read talkorgins 29+ evidences for macroev. several times in the past, and I don't see the "facts" for the inference.  I see "facts" for microev. and inferences and just-so stories for macroev. that *may* be correct, but are certainly just as questionable as inferring design in nature.  Though, in my mind, the two are quite different issues.  I don't believe that ID is a threat to the mechanisms of evolution except in questioning how far they can be applied.  

Here is another < link > where Dave and I discuss macroev.  It's a mess because there are other discussions going on as well.  But, if you’re actually interested, it might save me some time explaining myself again.  And, ~please~ don't just sift through it looking for things to pull out and declare that I simply "don't understand science".  I've *never* claimed to be a scientist, but I do think that I have the right to try to understand these issues and discuss them without people writing me off as a complete idiot from the get go or getting seriously ticked off when I honestly don't agree with them.  

Stephen wrote:

“It is pretty much impossible to discuss science here and remain a fundamentalist (by which I mean interpreting Genesis literally), unless you become completely disshonest.

BTW, I doubt that you have ever really discussed science on other forums in any honest way. You may think that you have, but you have not.”

Statements like that are what have made me completely lose interest in talking with folks in these forums.  You demand that if we don’t accept your logic and “scientific facts”, then we are simply being dishonest.  I have never been dishonest about my position in this debate.  I’m interested in both the science and the religious implications of the topics discussed.  But, I don’t think one needs to resort to discussions of the supernatural to consider various interpretations of the scientific evidence that support the inferences being made.
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,20:19

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40)
First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference.
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2007,20:45

Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2007,21:19)
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40)
First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is Saturday night here in Chapel Hill, NC. There are 2 parties going on in the apt. complex tonight, and I expect to be blasted within the hour. Accordingly, though I will be checking in occasionally, I will not be fit to defend the statement that causality is always an inference in science. Should that statement come under attack, I want anyone versed in the philosophy of science to feel free to defend it in my absence.

Over and out.
Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,21:37

Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2007,20:19)
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40)
First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I completely understand that, and totally agree.  I did not state that a "scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science".  Those are your words, not mine.  

Some inferences are supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered at *almost* the same level as fact.  But, there are many, many inferences made in scientific research, and I don't think they are all equally supported by the empirical evidence being applied to them.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2007,22:43

Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.
Posted by: Ftk on April 07 2007,22:57

{getting tingly all over}

Do I need to keep the heels on?  I'm pushing 6'2" in these suckers and they're killing my feet...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2007,23:06

Yes. I enjoy how they push your calf muscles up.

< http://talkdesign.org/cs/index.php?q=theft_over_toil >

Chance, necessity, design, don't know?
Posted by: Kristine on April 07 2007,23:50

One thing that I don't get about Dembski's EF is that it assumes that events that have a low probability are, well, improbable no matter what. Individually they may have a high improbability, but nevertheless given time at least one (and actually many) of them is bound to happen, and at any rate, where does Dembski get off in claiming that any particular biological structure is improbable? What is that based on? The more I read about his ideas the less I understand them.

Not to inundate Ftk with reading material, but a book that I found really helpful is Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences by John Allen Paulos, which explains how common so-called coincidences and improbabilities really are (innumerate is a term I apply to myself).

He's a mathematician and must know this stuff.

(BTW, I can't believe that this book has no index. I indexed half the book for my midterm and would be interested in completing the project if people would use it.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 08 2007,08:41

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40)
"(she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist)."

... is absolutely and positively false.  I do not believe this in any way, shape or form.  In fact, this is so not me that I am suppressing the urge to scream.  

First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does.

snip...

I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

FtK, there are many examples on your blog where you talk about lectures you have attended, and books you have read, where you barely disguise your disdain for evolution. That disdain is NOT based on your scientific understanding of the topic. You have proven, over and over, that all of those hours listening and reading have not resulted in any intellectual understanding of evolution, or even science. Your disdain is clearly based on your fear that evolution poses a threat to your religious worldview. That's OK; you are entitled to that opinion. But it would really be helpful if you could just admit it.

I will await, eagerly, the "evidence" for the claims of Christianity. I cannot imagine that they are more convincing than the millions of observations, inferences, predictions, and revisions that underlie evolutionary theory, but I await enlightenment on that topic.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 08 2007,09:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,08:41)
[quote=Ftk,April 07 2007,19:40]"  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does.

I will await, eagerly, the "evidence" for the claims of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm more interested in why IDers continue lie to us, in public and in court, that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or Genesis or Christianity.

At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such.

So tell us, FTK, why do Dembski and the others lie to us, repeatedly and under oath, about the religious nature of ID "theory"?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 08 2007,11:00

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 08 2007,09:46)
At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ummm, maybe so, or maybe not.

Check the < comments here >, where Jeremy (in a most excellent and cogent series of arguments) points out the deceitfulness of the DI in regard to disguising apologetics as science, and FtK promises to discuss that later.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 08 2007,12:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,11:00)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 08 2007,09:46)
At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ummm, maybe so, or maybe not.

Check the < comments here >, where Jeremy (in a most excellent and cogent series of arguments) points out the deceitfulness of the DI in regard to disguising apologetics as science, and FtK promises to discuss that later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, disillusionment sets in -- contrary to all my hopes and dreams, my blonde amazon is, indeed, just another deceptive evasive dishonest liar for the Lord, like every other run-of-the-mill IDer.

What a surprise.


I am shocked.  SHOCKED, I say.
Posted by: Kristine on April 08 2007,14:08

Oh goodie, another blonde-versus-brunette battle. The tall and willowy blonde Nellie Olsen versus the petite, brown-haired, strong-as-a-little-French-horse tomboy Laura Ingalls.

Favorite quote from Innumeracy:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One collection of coincidences too unlikely to be dismissed in this way is provided by the case of the proverbial monkey accidentally typing out Shakespeare's Hamlet. The probability of this occurring is (1/35)N [N is supposed to be an exponent] (where N is the number of symbols in Hamlet, maybe 200,000, and 35 is the number of typewriter symbols, and the blank space). This number is infinitesimal - zero, for all practical purposes. Though some have taken this tiny probability as an argument for "creation science," the only thing it clearly indicates is that monkeys seldom write great plays. If they want to, they shouldn't waste their time trying to peck one out accidentally but should instead evolve into something that has a better chance of writing Hamlet. Incidentally, why is the question never put as follows: What is the probability that Shakespeare, by randomly flexing his muscles, might accidentally have found himself swinging through the trees like a monkey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:D
Posted by: Ftk on April 08 2007,14:20

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....

Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever).
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 08 2007,15:06

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40)
I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory.  

I have a problem accepting macroev. and common descent as "facts".  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both of these statements can't be true.

You understand the mechanisms and readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory, but you don't accept macroevolution?

Nonsense.  You have no more undersanding of the mechanisms of evolution than winged monkeys flying out of Lenny's posterior orifice!

The problem scientists have with creationists (pay attention, FtK) is that creationists just make things up.  Take Ken Ham (please!) for example.  Hard to wish away dinosaurs 'cause the skeletons are all over the place. So, we'll put them in the Garden of Eden!  But, you say, they would eat Eve!  Ah, no, at that time they ate coconuts.  Before the apple-serpent thing.

It's not what creationists believe, rather it's the intellectual dishonesty with which creationists present their arguments that causes controversy.

Under oath in a court of law Behe testified that ID is not science, yet here he is a year later on the talk circuit spouting forth his same old arguments as if nothing ever happened.  That's dishonest.

And when a school board gets infested with dishonest creationists then it takes time and money to clean up the mess that shouldn't have been caused in the first place.

So, yeah, I have a problem with creationists.  I understand their tactics and I readily accept the historical record that given half a chance creationists would push their religious views into the science classroom.

I have a problem accepting creationism and "intelligent design" as science.
Posted by: jupiter on April 08 2007,15:42

Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,14:20)
:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is just what Nellie would say.
Posted by: mitschlag on April 08 2007,15:44

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40)
I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the scenario that justifies such a statement?

1. FTK is brought up a Christian and accepts the religion thoughtlessly.

2. At some point in her life, possibly late adolescence, a time of rebellion, she has an epiphany: "Maybe this Christianity isn't the right religion after all.  Maybe its claims aren't backed up by evidence."  So she investigates the world's religions.  She reads.  She attends services.  She discusses.  She Googles.  She collects evidences.  She compares the evidences for Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zoroastroism, Mormonism, Animism, etc, etc.  She weighs these evidences.  She agonizes.

3. How many evidences for each?  How do you weigh them?  Could this take a lifetime?

At what point does FTK throw in the towel and go back to that old time religion?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 08 2007,16:37

Sorry to burst that bubble, Lenny. I'm sure you'll find some way to work through your grief...

Additional insights into Nellie's worldview can be gleaned from this < long blog post from last November >

which includes this historical revelation

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools.

snip...

When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But don't let that excerpt stop you from reading the whole post; it has lots of other scientific insights as well...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 08 2007,17:33

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,16:37)
Sorry to burst that bubble, Lenny. I'm sure you'll find some way to work through your grief...

Additional insights into Nellie's worldview can be gleaned from this < long blog post from last November >

which includes this historical revelation

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools.

snip...

When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But don't let that excerpt stop you from reading the whole post; it has lots of other scientific insights as well...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Sadness*  :(
Posted by: Kristine on April 08 2007,17:45

Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,13:20)

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....

Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I refuse to be Veronica. But thanks, we're off to the Guthrie now that my hangover has worn off.

Another Innumeracy quote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Broadly understood, the study of filtering is nothing less than the study of psychology. Which impressions are filtered out and which are permitted to take hold largely determines out personality. More narrowly construed as the phenomenon whereby vivid and personalized events are remembered and their incidence therefore overestimated, the so-called Jeane Dixon effect often seems to lend support to bogus medical, diet, gambling, psychic, and pseudoscientific claims. Unless one is almost viscerally aware of this psychological tendency toward innumeracy, it is liable to bias our judgements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 08 2007,17:48

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 08 2007,15:06)
winged monkeys flying out of Lenny's posterior orifice!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEY !!!  

I saw "Bruce Almighty" !!!!!!!

I know what happens when you say that !!!!!


OWWWWWW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 08 2007,21:26

I will attempt to help out Steve in his moments of inerbriation, although I have consumed most of an entire bottle of a very nice Italian red myself.  The ladder of evidence:

- Fact.  Defined.  Repeatable.
- Inference - data that can explain the facts
- Hypothesis - logical chain that may explain the facts
- Opinion - gut feel.  Expert opinion is the gut feel of an expert.
- Faith - someone else's opinion.
- Fantasy - well, you may add your favorite ID thought here.

Your job, as a scientist or investigator, is to move your understanding up the ladder of evidence.  Cause, effect, data, experiment; all are fair game in moving up the ladder.

Quick aside: brunettes rule.  Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, Rachel Ray, Hurley, my wife.  Case closed!
Posted by: Tom on April 08 2007,21:48

Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): < http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1 >  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.
Posted by: Ftk on April 08 2007,22:38

Sheesh...you people are going to drive me insane quickly.  

Yeah, I think Brown's stuff is interesting...so what.

If you really want to dig into some reading, I can refer you to a 3 month debate that occured in the same forum.  I led the thread, with Brown commenting on occassion.  

Of course, it would have been much more fun if people had played along with my initial plan on how to set the entire thing up, but they were all serious party poopers.  No matter...I found it quite interesting anyway.
Posted by: Ftk on April 08 2007,22:42

"Tom", I noticed that you are a new member.  You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you??
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 08 2007,23:13

Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48)
Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): < http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1 >  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud.

What about plate tectonics? *GULP* ???
Posted by: argystokes on April 08 2007,23:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2007,21:13)
Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48)
Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): < http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1 >  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud.

What about plate tectonics? *GULP* ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plate techtonics, Arden? Surely you know about Walt Brown's continental drag race hypothesis?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,01:39

Quote (argystokes @ April 08 2007,23:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2007,21:13)
Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48)
Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): < http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1 >  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud.

What about plate tectonics? *GULP* ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plate techtonics, Arden? Surely you know about Walt Brown's continental drag race hypothesis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was that the theory AFDave was referring to when he talked about the continents moving to their current places at 60mph?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,01:48

Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.


< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007....ew.html >

Ps - I'm waiting on my underwear update. I love it, it makes Kristine jealous and Lenny twitchy.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,07:14

Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,22:42)
"Tom", I noticed that you are a new member.  You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice how substantive questions are ignored, and personal gossip is initiated...

Re Walt Brown, yes, it is quite clear that FtK finds his stuff "interesting"; she relies on his "expertise" quite a bit. See the < comment thread here >, where she quotes Brown's claptrap verbatim (Richard, you will find the original topic quite interesting, but it quickly veers away).
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example. all species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly Brown has not learned enough biology to know about incomplete digestive systems, or even nephrons... And FtK accepts this completely bogus stuff as part of the "massive evidence against evolution" that she often talks about but never gives a citation. So < here it is >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,08:42

FtK has < posted her "review" of Humes's lecture > here. In actuality, it is a standard re-casting of debunked creationist arguments, untruths, and other interesting items that have little to do with Humes's main topic, the Dover trial. I have posted a comment (below) that will, of course, not appear there. So you read it here first.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting choice of "scientific" bugaboos to rail against. As I'm sure you know, Dembski's accusations against Eric Pianka (that he "believes in the necessity of killing off 90% of the world's population in order to save the environment") is < simply not true >. Untruth is not a good footing on which to start any article.

And then you start to quote debunked and misleading creation "scientists", as if again to show that your understanding of basic biology and even more basic science is quite meager.

There are a lot more errors and misleading statements in that post that I'd be happy to address. But since your devotion to open debate seems not be be extended to me, I'll wait and see if you post this comment first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,08:54

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2007,08:42)
FtK has < posted her "review" of Humes's lecture > here. In actuality, it is a standard re-casting of debunked creationist arguments, untruths, and other interesting items that have little to do with Humes's main topic, the Dover trial. I have posted a comment (below) that will, of course, not appear there. So you read it here first.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting choice of "scientific" bugaboos to rail against. As I'm sure you know, Dembski's accusations against Eric Pianka (that he "believes in the necessity of killing off 90% of the world's population in order to save the environment") is < simply not true >. Untruth is not a good footing on which to start any article.

And then you start to quote debunked and misleading creation "scientists", as if again to show that your understanding of basic biology and even more basic science is quite meager.

There are a lot more errors and misleading statements in that post that I'd be happy to address. But since your devotion to open debate seems not be be extended to me, I'll wait and see if you post this comment first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski in true malicious form also called the department of homeland security.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....roversy >

He is a very poor advert for Christianity.
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,09:10

Hi FTK,

Glad to hear we swarthy Greek types are worth a look in! Don't bother with Richard, he's nothing but a lot of talk and a man-thong.

But, sadly, fun time must come to an end temporarily, there's work to do. We know you like to talk about the science, you've told us enough times, so let's stop playing around and get down to the dirty, sweaty, illegal in 48 states science talk.

I've read Wesley and John's paper, it was quite interesting. In reference to one of the themes of that article how do respond to the argument that the Demsbkian Explanatory Filter relies on lack of knowledge about a certain topic at a certain time to make it's inference of design?

That'll do for now.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,09:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we < conservative protestant women > are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,09:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t know of ~any~ ID proponents who would not allow questions to be asked about the design inference. In fact, ID supporters are very vocal about their want to debate and field questions on the topics surrounding this controversy. It’s the evolutionists who refuse to engage in publicized dialogue and debate.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From the only pro-ID forum I can post due to moderation / c*nsorship:

< http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?board=1.0 >

Yes, look at those IDers dying to discuss it...

Meanwhile, back in the reality based world..
Posted by: slpage on April 09 2007,09:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"
:p
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,09:28

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,09:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we < conservative protestant women > are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So 'evilution' is false because fundies are better at sex? Except they're not. Trust me, the sample size is significant* and the findings conclusive. Their high frustration manifests itself in eagerness, but that's about it.

Ted Haggard had some quotes about fundies having the best sex life. Turns out he may have been right, but I'm not really up for a methamphetamine fueled gay romp to find out (sorry Arden).

As for conservapedia - its just a strange collection of bible rich fact poor idiocy of what conservatives would like the world to be like, rather than an empirical, fact based account. Its the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going "Lalalala".

* Sid James would be proud.

P.S. - you wearing your seamed stockings today?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,09:32

Quote (slpage @ April 09 2007,09:25)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*shudders*

Over-rated? How so?
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,09:33

OI HUGHES!

Hands off my fundy bit on the side. Outside now you man-thong sporting ponce.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,09:38

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,09:33)
OI HUGHES!

Hands off my fundy bit on the side. Outside now you man-thong sporting ponce.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedos, extra tight, Louis.




(hello bathroom wall!)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,09:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,09:16)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we < conservative protestant women > are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, there is a lot of science in that post. You have to hand it to FtK; opening up a discussion of sexual sociology is bound to get this group off track immediately! And defending conservative wanker sites like conservapedia is even more red-herring-esque.

BTW, Richard, you should read the last paragraph in < this review > of the book cited by FtK before you go too far over to the wild side...

At any rate, as Louis noted, there are some unanswered comments and questions here. I honestly have no hope of getting more discussion about the "massive evidence against evolution", Wes's article, or even Humes's book, but if you all want to wander back there, I wouldn't mind.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,09:57

Alright, I'm starting to get creeped out. Back to science, people. Take the perviness to the Bathroom Wall.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,09:57

FtK's going to get her science on. She's not afraid of the facts.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,10:19

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,09:57)
Alright, I'm starting to get creeped out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean you weren't before now?
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,10:31

Ok who had SteveS getting creeped out in the third round? Third round anyone?

But as he reminds us, back to the science.

Any answers to the science questions yet? Any answer to my question about how the Elsberry/Wikins paper proves that the DemsbkianEF relies on the argument from ignorance to reach an inference of design?

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,11:16

Well, I suppose it's that time of day again for me to ask FTK what peer-reviewed articles she's read. After she ignores or obfuscates the question, I'll ask again tomorrow.

But don't worry -- at no point will people ever suspect that FTK is just making shit up.  ;)
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,11:19

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 08 2007,20:26)
Quick aside: brunettes rule.  Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, Rachel Ray, Hurley, my wife.  Case closed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why, thank you. And may I say, creation "science" and jazz do not go together:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy crap, do I need to relive my childhood and debate this stuff again? In the 1970s it was the arctic poles that ejected the water and that’s why they’re covered in ice, because “plate tectonics is a lie.” Yeah, I got out of Hush-puppyville, okay?

Ever wonder why that person needs to chip an arrowhead when God could have given him claws after he was “driven from the Garden” to hold his own against all the newly-carnivorous dinosaurs? If an intelligence made us, why did we have to remake ourselves more intelligently than that intelligence? What up with the Total Make-Over shows? (Oh, don’t even start, Kristine. There are educated theologians and honest biblical scholars whom you could debate instead of these losers like Brown.)

Let me just say that I know a ticket to nowhere when I see one. I knew one as a child and I know one now. Brown’s crap is a ticket to nowhere. It’s nowhere, and he’s nowhere. What a waste. There’s no consistency in what these creationist hawkers say. Their “predictions” are always made after the fact, after the “confirmation” has already been published! Not that it matters to the sheep who bleat for them.

You know, these creationists shouldn’t work so #### hard. I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!” I was the only one who followed the argument, such as it was. People want reassurance, not facts. They don’t even want theology. They want feel-ology. Who was the only one following the arguments and raising complex theological issues in confirmation classes? Me! The other kids—now church regulars—couldn’t have cared less. Religion for most people is a habit they perform about something they really don’t care about. Anything in front of their face is God to them and even if it turned out that they were really worshipping Satan they wouldn’t mind, for all the thinking I saw them doing.

Speaking of feel-ology, if that statistic about conservative Protestant women consistently reaching orgasm, then I’d honestly glad. I’m not so low as to wish unhappiness on people that I disagree with. So climax away, sisters. As for me I'm still waiting for a response to the paper.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,12:15

Kristine,

Just shear curiosity...

From what I've read, you've never really taken the whole god thing seriously - even as a youth.  When did you stop attending church/sunday school?  I find it kind of hard to believe that you never came across other Christians who were searching for answers to those more difficult questions.  What type of church did you attend?  Did you switch churches when you weren't provided answers, or did you ever consider the possible evidence for other belief systems?  

What evidence led you to believe that there is no "god" (or whatever) that is ultimately responsible for our existence?

And, for craps sake, don't think I'm asking you these questions to try to "convert" you or some craziness like that.  I have no desire whatsoever.  I'm just curious about people who make some of the statements that you have made.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,12:20

You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,12:21

Hi FTK,

Science questions. Answers please. Ta.

Louis

P.S. I am keeping it short and to the point because otherwise SteveStory will port the comment to the Bathroom wall due to the gross perversion it contains. I promise to talk really full on science into your ear, oh yeah.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 09 2007,12:25

Kristine and FTK -

Kristine - You were looking for a summary of why Dr. Dr. Dembski is like soooo totally wrong?

FTK - You were looking for realistic non-threatening information to get into the sciencey thing?

Well, ladies, I have your book right here:

Science Confronts Intelligent Design Creationism, an anthology edited by Andrew J Petto and Laurie R Godfrey, and published recetly by Norton Press.

Kristine - The chapter about Dembski's wacked math is excellent.  Generally I don't do math well, but I swear I could even understnad what Dembski was trying and failing to say, and why after reading the chapter.

Maybe the extra critique is what gives Dr. Dr. Dembski the push he needs to become an honest man?

Some guy named Wes Elsburry I think wrote a chapter - I think I heard of him, some guy named Pennock too

Edited:  Link:  http://www.amazonfembks.com/
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,12:28

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:20)
You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there a particular lecturer you found especially impressive, whose take on any scientific concept you consider superior than conventional wisdom? Perhaps this would be a better subject to discuss, since it is one which you will likely have the upper-hand knowledge-wise.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,12:30

Quote (J-Dog @ April 09 2007,13:25)
Maybe the extra critique is what gives Dr. Dr. Dembski the push he needs to become an honest man?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ex-physicist and ID supporter Dave Heddle said Dembski's math was broken. Didn't result in an honest Dembski. IIRC, it just got Heddle banned from Dembski's site.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,12:30

Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,12:35

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:30)
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you sort the forum topics by length, you'll see the Dave topics at the top. For quick reading, however, I would recommend the "Formal" debate between our very own Deadman (and now Eric Murphy) and AFDave which is ongoing right < here >. I'd be fascinated to know your reaction to the debate, and would love to discuss any topic brought up within it.
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,12:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?

Well, which "facts" are these? I've see Walt Brown mentioned, do you think that the Noachian Flood really happened? Do you think the world is ~6000 years old?

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,12:51

LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,12:57

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,12:51)
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every time I've ever seen a person refuse to answer whether they think the Earth is 6,000 years old or whether Noah's Flood actually happened, it has ALWAYS meant that the person indeed does believe those things, but they're embarrassed to admit it. Only YEC believers refuse to answer those questions.

So, we can take that as a 'yes'.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think we all know the answer to that.
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,12:58

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:51)
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not? AFDave did it for 9 months. It's a good place with many scientists, light moderation, but not so many members that you're likely to get overwhelmed.
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,13:11

FTK,

Well I can't say I'm not disappointed.

Anyway, I have to say I strongly disagree with your statement that it's "all interpretation of the same facts". The problem I have though is that I don't know precisely what you think if you refuse to answer really simple questions.

Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here. After all I have asked you several times now for a scientific discussion and you did come in here complaining about how no one here was discussing science, so I'd really like to help you out by actually discussing some with you.

How about that question I asked earlier about the Elsberry/Wilkins paper? After all it's just one paper, available online for free, and it doesn't require some huge technical knowledge to understand at least the basics of. Go read it and let me know what your answer to my question is please. That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,13:15

It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is.  It's simply not logically sound, IMHO.  

I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 09 2007,13:16

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,13:11)
That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if DaveTard shows her his new tool.. I mean his new jet-ski when she visits him...
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,13:21

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,11:15)
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is.  It's simply not logically sound, IMHO.  

I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. I promise to take what you say at face value, and discuss items without regard to current scientific consensus.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,13:23

"Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here."

Not really, but I would like an answer to the question I've had for years.  I don't understand why scientists insist that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for everything we observe on planet earth.  How can that ever be considered anything other than speculation?  Why can't other options be considered?  

When I think about that first living organism, it seems like shear insanity to consider that it started evolving on it's own and from that starting point everything we observe came to be.  We've never observed anything remotely close to supporting this notion, but yet it's considered rock solid fact.  

This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic logic.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,13:23

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:15)
I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which peer-reviewed articles led you to that conclusion?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When I think about that first living organism, it seems like shear insanity to consider that it started evolving on it's own and from that starting point everything we observe came to be.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Try harder. >
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,13:23

FTK- since you asked: Lutheran. I stopped believing in God (if I ever did) at age nine. I did what was expected of me and it never occurred to me to ask to go elsewhere - otherwise I would have asked to go to a different school, too (and grow up elsewhere). It's no one's fault that I was different, restless, a tomboy, a voracious reader, a questioner and an artistic kid stuck in a small town she hated.

I stopped going to Sunday school/confirmation classes at age 18, when I left for college and after I was confirmed. I did what was expected of me until I could do what I wanted. Yes, I had science teachers who went to my church. Yes, I talked with a family member who was a 6-day creationist about these things. I don't believe in the supernatural. I have no evidence for the nonexistence or existence of God. I'm more interested in what I can do. Reality is participatory, like democracy.

Anybody has the right to try to convert anybody. You wouldn't be alone in my life if you tried to convert me. It's all good, this is America. But look around you. A recent poll confirms that Americans, who are so religious, are biblically illiterate. Read Rick Warren and see what an intellectual he is. *Bleah!*
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 09 2007,13:27

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:15)
I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you knew how to cook then you'd be able to answer this question yourself.

The secret is Time.

Learn to make gumbo and the entire theory of evolution will fall into place.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,13:29

FtK, I'm very disappointed in you. Your "search for the truth" needs help. The idea that we all know all the arguments is preposterous. Do you think we have reached the end of knowledge? Were you there when every science debate ever happened? Is there no chance rational dialogue could convince you? Honestly, I could be convinced of a case for a creator if positive evidence was offered. I doubt it would be the god of the bible, though. Your refusal to talk science speaks volumes. the things you don't say, say it all.

You don't want to learn
You don't seek the truth
You must cling to your worldview and use it as a lens
You willfully ignore things that rock your faith
you are intellectually dishonest

And again, I will note, this is manifested in the fact that you post here unmoderated and you will not afford that courtesy on your own forum. Shame on you, and if you are indeed "for the kids" then I see an new dark age of anti-intellectualism.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,13:31

"On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. "

Sigh...well, that's sweet of you to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before you would change your tune.  

F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda.  He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,13:32

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 09 2007,12:57)
Every time I've ever seen a person refuse to answer whether they think the Earth is 6,000 years old or whether Noah's Flood actually happened, it has ALWAYS meant that the person indeed does believe those things, but they're embarrassed to admit it. Only YEC believers refuse to answer those questions.

So, we can take that as a 'yes'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, that's certainly a yes.

See < this interesting discussion > wherein FtK recommends < this highly scientific book > by YEC Duane Gish et al.

I particularly liked this no-hold-barred review, entitled "you mean I can't give it NO stars?" from the Amazon website.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cannot believe in this day and age someone can write crap like this and get any of you morons to believe it. I would argue, but there is no evidence to argue with. Excuse me, I've got to go get myself a pet dinosaur from a cave in Africa, since they are still alive and all. Boy, I hope it breathes fire!! Yeah, what an argument, Creationists really put Evolutionists in their place. I just can't believe parents buy this rubbish for their kids. Do you realize that with no evidence to back any of this up, he is just a hack who is basically making a story up to try and sell books? He probably doesn't even believe this crap himself (at least I hope not)!
How can I put this most simply: EVOLUTION IS FACT. IT NEVER TRIES TO ARGUE AGAINST A GOD. IT JUST STATES THAT WE WERE NOT CREATED DIRECTLY BY GOD. And there is evidence right in front of all people to see!! We use evolution directly for our benefit!! We breed dogs, horses, and other animals for specific purposes that we determine!! Mules did not exist in nature before we made them! We have only been consciously evolving creatures for less than a few thousand years, so put on those thinking caps and think what nature could do in several billion. Does it ruin the egos of the general population to think that God did not specifically design us?!?! WHY? And what makes us so special? In my lifetime, all I have seen us do is fight wars over religious, moral, and other reasons. I would think someone who designed us in His image would not make such a flawed, worthless creature. I know most people are going to read this and continue to think in the incredibly flawed way that would cause them to rate this book positively. I just hope one person can look at this objectively and tell what a load of crap it is. THAT'S ALL!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,13:36

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:23)
"Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here."

Not really, but I would like an answer to the question I've had for years.  I don't understand why scientists insist that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for everything we observe on planet earth.  How can that ever be considered anything other than speculation?  Why can't other options be considered?  

When I think about that first living organism, it seems like shear insanity to consider that it started evolving on it's own and from that starting point everything we observe came to be.  We've never observed anything remotely close to supporting this notion, but yet it's considered rock solid fact.  

This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All knowledge is tentative. NDE is the best explanation supported by positive evidence that fits what we observe in the world. There is no positive evidence for ID/Creationism. If there is, please point me to it. ID has zero predictive and explanatory power. It is ignorance seeded by dogma.

it would seem the problem is not with NDE but your ability to conceptualize. And I'm not going to give you a playfull spanking now.
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. "

Sigh...well, that's sweet of you to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before you would change your tune.  

F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda.  He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no worries since I doubt I'll be able to convince you of anything. A conversation about science would be beneficial to this board, as it does have readers that do not or rarely contribute.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 09 2007,13:49

Quote (J-Dog @ April 09 2007,14:16)
Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,13:11)
That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if DaveTard shows her his new tool.. I mean his new jet-ski when she visits him...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the subject of which, I am eagerly awaiting Dave's comment on the weekly diet weigh-in.  I wonder what manly exercise he did during the last week to help him lose weight?  My Monday isn't complete until I've "seen" him swaggering around at FtK's with his tummy sucked in, telling us about all the power tools he used.  Arrgh, Arrgh, Arrgh!
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,13:52

Richard,

As much as I am attracted to you, I must be honest with you and tell you that you simply don't listen (at all).  I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now.  

It must on some level occur to you that you are never ever going to consider anything other than what coinsides with your worldview, so what is the point of further dialogue?  

You're not interested in actually considering that neither of us might have the perfect explanations.  Nor are any of you willing to come to some sort of understanding or middle ground on how to solve the conflicts in this debate.  

I've been reading the threads in this forum for a while now (ever since Richard started screwing with me over on my blog), and it's pretty apparent that you guys are here for only one reason.  And, sincere dialogue is certainly NOT the reason.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,13:56

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:31)

F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda.  He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wrong, again. >

In that comment thread, FtK stated: "Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a concept that I don't find to be that important to science."

I posed a question and asked her how it would be approached from an ID standpoint, and how it could be approached from an evolutionary standpoint. This question was batted around for a bit by FtK and ace logician Larry Farfaman, but nobody really got the answer. When I pointed out that the answer, a real life example, showed how understanding of common descent led to the availability of a potent anticancer drug (Taxol), she (and Larry) dissembled a bit but never really had cogent arguments against that example.

And I did question her "honestly" (sic), but didn't say anything about her "honesty".

Nowhere in that thread did I say that she was being "disrespectful" of my knowledge. I did say that she seemed to be missing the point, and I'll stand by that statement even now.

Nowhere did I say that I thought she was "interested in shoving (her) religion down student's throats". I did say that folks like her were interested in teaching ID in science classes; perhaps her confusion about God and the designer made her think I said something else.

And in my ultimate comment on that thread, I pointed out that her criteria for how science should proceed (follow the evidence, no matter where it leads), meant that ID was useless. Without a mechanism more specific than some unknown designer acting in some unknown manner at some unknown time, you can't make predictions, and predictions are HOW you follow the evidence in any scientific endeavor. So far she hasn't come back to that topic either.

What's next?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,13:58

[quote=Ftk,April 09 2007,13:52]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've been reading the threads in this forum for a while now (ever since Richard started screwing with me over on my blog), and it's pretty apparent that you guys are here for only one reason.  And, sincere dialogue is certainly NOT the reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, atheists only ever want ONE thing...

Does this mean you refuse to tell us why common descent and the Oort Cloud are a 'crock'?

:(
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2007,14:08

Ok then, we'll do it a different way, FTK. I'm an open minded geezer, all I care about is the evidence, I don't care WHAT is true I care HOW WE KNOW it's true.

Show me some evidence for some aspect of your "worldview" (you might have to explain what that is and what your worldview is before I get it).

Take for example the diversity of the organisms on the planet. How many species are there in your "worldview" and how did there get to be that number?

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,14:09

"There is no positive evidence for ID/Creationism. If there is, please point me to it. ID has zero predictive and explanatory power. It is ignorance seeded by dogma."

There is no positive evidence for common descent either.  Inference...key word here.  Inferences for both ID and common descent.  The predictive power of evolution is overstated.  It's more a mind set than anything else.   If the notion of common descent had never been considered, science would have rolled along at exactly the same speed as it has.  It's irrelevant.  

"it would seem the problem is not with NDE but your ability to conceptualize."

LOL, conceptualize?  That's what this comes down to?  You can imagine that first little blobby cell popping out of nowhere and starting the process of evolution on it's own and I cannot.  Fine, you're great at day dreaming, but I consider those stories just that.  Interested dreams.

"And I'm not going to give you a playfull spanking now."

:(  :(  :(

My day just won't be complete without that playful slap on the ass.  I'm going to go have a good cry...unless you might consider changing your mind?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no positive evidence for common descent either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will you share with us the 'positive evidence' for a 6,000-YO earth and Noah's flood?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is no positive evidence for common descent either.  Inference...key word here.  Inferences for both ID and common descent.  The predictive power of evolution is overstated.  It's more a mind set than anything else.   If the notion of common descent had never been considered, science would have rolled along at exactly the same speed as it has.  It's irrelevant.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which peer-reviewed articles led you to this conclusion?

And yet 'irrelevant' as it is, common descent gets you upset enough to devote a whole blog to 'defeating' it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My day just won't be complete without that playful slap on the ass.  I'm going to go have a good cry...unless you might consider changing your mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, the sex kitten routine is just creepy when you do it.  :O
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,14:36

Suddenly I remember a story about my chemistry teacher, who went to my church. I adored this guy. Just about everybody did.

There we are, learning about covalent bonds, ionic bonds, chemical reactions, etc., and finally I raised my hand and said [I’m reconstructing all this, of course]:“I have to ask this, okay? These elements are active. I mean, they don’t just sit there – they do things. They do things instead of just doing nothing.” And my teacher got that gleam in his eye that I knew so well. “Why? [I had someone at home who was going to ask me this question.] What makes them do things?” And my teacher said, “Everyone, what is the Law of Inertia?”

Of course, the whole class starts reciting, “Things that are at rest remain at rest, and things that are in motion remain in motion, unless acted upon by another force…” And he put up his finger and said, “No – not quite. You were taught that, but now it’s time to unlearn something. Nothing is at rest. Everyone is in motion, all the time. ‘Rest’ is only relative.” And he said, “So the reactions of chemicals are a given. We have not observed anything ‘starting them up.’ The universe is in motion. For all we know it always was, even before the Big Bang.”

Whoa! You meant the Big Bang may not have been the beginning…?

He didn’t go there. “If you want to believe that ‘Something started it,’ and that’s God for you, fine. If you want to believe that things always being in motion is God, fine. Or you can just believe that everything was always in motion, forever back however long it extends if there was a beginning. But if you put down on any test that ‘God did it,’ you get an F.” He paused, and then said with a twinkle, “And even if God takes my class and puts down on my test that ‘I did it,’ He’ll get an F, too. And then I’ll keep Him after class and make Him write a paper. Boy, [winking] would I make Him write a paper!”

Science is doing. We're quibbling on and on. I guess all I can recommend at this point is for Ftk to pull back and just pick a science topic that interests her and just learn about it in detail. Hold off on all the It is/Is it not ID and just study what the mainstream science says about it. It could be zoology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, whatever.

That's what I did. When I realized that I didn't believe in God I didn't automatically accept evolution - I hadn't heard of it yet. I went in other directions for a while. What attracted me to science was its evidence-trail, its cumulative effect.

I really don't care if anyone believes in God. I guess, though, that I'm disappointed that people were so desperate for me to believe in God that they didn't care how I believed. I think it's important how one believes, if one is going to be a believer.

Incidentally, Ftk, I have recently encountered, though unfortunately not yet met, a Christian who is a scientist and who impressed me very much with his book. He really took me by surprise. < But look at how he is being treated >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,15:04

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:52)
Richard,

As much as I am attracted to you, I must be honest with you and tell you that you simply don't listen (at all).  I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now.  

It must on some level occur to you that you are never ever going to consider anything other than what coinsides with your worldview, so what is the point of further dialogue?  

You're not interested in actually considering that neither of us might have the perfect explanations.  Nor are any of you willing to come to some sort of understanding or middle ground on how to solve the conflicts in this debate.  

I've been reading the threads in this forum for a while now (ever since Richard started screwing with me over on my blog), and it's pretty apparent that you guys are here for only one reason.  And, sincere dialogue is certainly NOT the reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I stated that all knowledge is tentative and that positive evidence could persuade me. I haven't studied it endlessly nor do I think that there is an unassailable end state of knowledge, which is why I'm very keen to discuss it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It must on some level occur to you that you are never ever going to consider anything other than what coinsides with your worldview, so what is the point of further dialogue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is a very dangerous statement. Imagine if politics worked like that?

NDE isn't a perfect explanation - there are lots of gaps, more work to be done. But it is growing, maturing, evolving and always subject to revision by a better theory. This is the way of the scientific enterprise.

Talk of a "middle ground" confuses me. If you say that 2+3=5 and I say 2+3=7, do we compromise on 2+3=6?

Give sincere dialogue a try. I'll treat you with more respect then I'd give you in the bedroom. Maybe it confirms your view and changes mine, who knows?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2007,15:08

"There is no positive evidence for common descent either"

I believe speciation has been observed. Heredity is positive evidence. Zach will no doubt offer 250 more.
Posted by: jeannot on April 09 2007,15:33

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:15)
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In 6000 years or less, definitely not.  ???
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,15:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,15:08)
"There is no positive evidence for common descent either"

I believe speciation has been observed. Heredity is positive evidence. Zach will no doubt offer 250 more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would ask her how she would explain us sharing 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, tho I fear her non-explanation would accomplish nothing more than a low-grade headache.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As much as I am attracted to you, I must be honest with you and tell you that you simply don't listen (at all).  I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



References, please? Articles in AIG don't count.
Posted by: jeannot on April 09 2007,15:48

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,14:09)
There is no positive evidence for common descent either.  Inference...key word here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do know that inference comes from observations of facts, that are termed evidence, don't you?

I hope you also know that it means more than just direct visual observation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These different interpretations are of equal value to you, of course. Oh wait...
Facts don't support empirical evidence, btw.
Anyway, these interpretations (at least the scientific ones) are actually hypothesis, that allow us to make predictions. And predictions are compared to collected data.
But interpretation comming from creationists are just that, post-observational interpretations. No hypothesis, no prediction, no comparison to observation.
What did your theory predict regarding the isotopic ratios of the basalts in the altantic crust? I'm just curious.

PS: How do you falsify ID?
Posted by: jeannot on April 09 2007,16:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,15:08)
"There is no positive evidence for common descent either"

I believe speciation has been observed. Heredity is positive evidence. Zach will no doubt offer 250 more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< 29+ evidences for macroevolution (and common descent) >
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,17:02

Okay, Kristine, I find you quite interesting...you may not want to continue this conversation because I’m not sure my comments can all be classified as “science”, but nonetheless, I’ll throw it out there anyway and maybe you‘ll take a stab at it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK- since you asked: Lutheran. I stopped believing in God (if I ever did) at age nine. I did what was expected of me and it never occurred to me to ask to go elsewhere - otherwise I would have asked to go to a different school, too (and grow up elsewhere). It's no one's fault that I was different, restless, a tomboy, a voracious reader, a questioner and an artistic kid stuck in a small town she hated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...I grew up Lutheran as well.  I’ve since dropped the dogma of “religion” and attend a non-denominational church which is a more authentic, down to earth, fact driven environment.  Nothing against Lutherans, but I wanted an environment where I was learning more about why we believe, not what we believe (plus the organ music and hymns from 1850 were torture to sit through).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't believe in the supernatural. I have no evidence for the nonexistence or existence of God. I'm more interested in what I can do. Reality is participatory, like democracy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This type of statement has always been of extreme interest to me.  From what I have gathered, atheists are quite driven by the belief that we must use our reason and intellect when considering the many facets of this debate, and education is what they believe to be the key that allows one to dismiss the “myth” of the supernatural.  Yet, they have no evidence that God doesn’t exist.  It seems to me that the only option for someone who doesn’t believe that there is evidence for or against the supernatural would be to adhere to agnosticism.  So, what is it that takes a person that step further and claim that their belief is that there is no god?  I’ve never quite been able to figure that one out.

And, for me, it seems like an interest in science automatically leads to the question of the origin of life.  But, I suppose I’m just an odd duck.  The bottom line for me is that I ~can’t~ conceive of the universe evolving from nothing whatsoever.  That is an extremely irrational, illogical conclusion, IMHO.  So, that leads to the next obvious question..is there any evidence at all that supports the notion of a supernatural or natural designer, and can we learn anything about that source of our existence from science, history, archeology, or other areas of study.  So, that’s were I’ve been for the past 6+ years - addicted to finding the answers to these questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anybody has the right to try to convert anybody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While that may be true, I have no interest in attempting to convert a hard core atheist.  I’ve never converted anyone in my life, and I am *certainly* not going to attempt it here.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A recent poll confirms that Americans, who are so religious, are biblically illiterate. Read Rick Warren and see what an intellectual he is. *Bleah!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could be.  I’m certainly not going to doubt that.  I’ve met some pretty biblically illiterate Christians in my day.  But, I will say that there are many biblical scholars and everyday Christians who could probably carry on a very intellectual conversation with you.  Does the fact that so many Christians don’t know what’s in their bible make Christianity wrong?  Nope.  Does the fact that many atheists don’t know squat about science and consider Dawkins et.al. as their source that proves the non-existence of the supernatural make atheism the wrong conclusion?  Not necessarily.  

Regarding your science teacher:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He didn’t go there. “If you want to believe that ‘Something started it,’ and that’s God for you, fine. If you want to believe that things always being in motion is God, fine. Or you can just believe that everything was always in motion, forever back however long it extends if there was a beginning. But if you put down on any test that ‘God did it,’ you get an F.” He paused, and then said with a twinkle, “And even if God takes my class and puts down on my test that ‘I did it,’ He’ll get an F, too. And then I’ll keep Him after class and make Him write a paper. Boy, [winking] would I make Him write a paper!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no problem with what your science teacher told you.  In fact, I agree with him.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it's important how one believes, if one is going to be a believer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I certainly agree with that, but I think it’s different for different people.  Some have no problem believing in a God or Buddha or whatever on blind faith.  For me, that seems insane.  That is why I have a hard time understanding the mindset of some theistic evolutionists that I’ve talked with.  They state that they are Christian, but it seems to me that they base their beliefs on faith alone because they do not seem interested in considering the evidence for their beliefs.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Incidentally, Ftk, I have recently encountered, though unfortunately not yet met, a Christian who is a scientist and who impressed me very much with his book. He really took me by surprise. But look at how he is being treated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, I’m pretty familiar with Miller’s arguments, and it doesn’t surprise me that atheists are impressed with him.  He believes everything that they do in regard to the issues of this debate, except in the end he states that he is a Christian with no further explanation of ~what~ he bases his Christian beliefs upon.  

It sounds to me that he bases his Christian beliefs on that “feel-ology” thing that you seem to abhor.  So, I’m not sure why you are impressed with him.  I actually exchanged a few emails with him once because he is someone who is of extreme interest to me as well.   There seems to be a disconnect somewhere between his theology and his science.  Of course, he was not keen on telling me much because he had read my review of his KU lecture, but he did mention something that I felt might shed a little light on the reason for his beliefs.  

Anyway, I am curious why a guy like Miller impresses you when he doesn’t seem to me to be using his intellect in regard to his religious beliefs - rather he seems to rely on “feel-ology“.
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,17:26

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,16:02)
Anyway, I am curious why a guy like Miller impresses you when he doesn’t seem to me to be using his intellect in regard to his religious beliefs - rather he seems to rely on “feel-ology“.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I doubt it. I think he's very well educated in theology as well. He strikes me as well read in literature, too; hardly the type that I adhor. (I guess you missed my comment on the UD thread that I'd rather listen to Dembski talk for an hour (and I have listened to him for many hours) than jump around in these "fun, fun, fun!" megachurches. You know, I'm probably Dembski's biggest listener. How ironic.)

What interested and impressed me was the science in his book, Finding Darwin's God. However, the last two chapters I did not get at all. I don't understand where his religious beliefs come from. I have no idea where they come from and I don't presume to know; it was, frankly, gobbledygook but at least they don't come from a vehement rejection of science that I've seen demonstrated by other people.

What impressed me was where his science came from. It is his example, the life that he lives and the science that he pursues, that impresses me. So I decided to let his religion be.

Now, my dear, I think that I have answered enough of your questions. This is not a thread about me. Quit deflecting the issue. I've asked you several times about Wes's paper. Let me know when you have a reply to that.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,17:26

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,17:02)
And, for me, it seems like an interest in science automatically leads to the question of the origin of life.  But, I suppose I’m just an odd duck.  The bottom line for me is that I ~can’t~ conceive of the universe evolving from nothing whatsoever.  That is an extremely irrational, illogical conclusion, IMHO.  So, that leads to the next obvious question..is there any evidence at all that supports the notion of a supernatural or natural designer, and can we learn anything about that source of our existence from science, history, archeology, or other areas of study.  So, that’s were I’ve been for the past 6+ years - addicted to finding the answers to these questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And what evidence has shown up that "supports the notion of a supernatural or natural designer"? We're still waiting... Take your time.

Science is, if nothing else, dependent on what we can do. We all have questions about origins, We just don't have any currently identified scientific way to answer the questions. There are no consensus answers to questions about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. If it is so unsatisfying to you that the current answer is "We don't know", there is not much to say except that you should be thankful you didn't live a few centuries earlier, when a lot more questions (e.g., What causes diseases?) should have been answered like that. Unfortunately, in earlier centuries a lot of them were still answered the same way you are answering the origins questions today, with a superstitious just-so story for which there is no evidence...
Posted by: George on April 09 2007,17:38

Theistic evolutionist here.  And yes, I do base my belief in God purely on faith.  What else is there?  I'd be very curious to hear about concrete evidence about God.  I've yet to hear anything convincing to tell you the truth.  Philosophical attempts like Decartes's to try and prove the existence of God using purely rational means have been complete failures.

For me, faith and reason are two completely different tools for understanding life, the universe and everything.  Faith is the correct tool for the spiritual side of things and reason is the right one for the material.  Like apples and screwdrivers.

Apparently, you don't think that way.  Maybe this is this worldview of yours you've mentioned?  Perhaps your real resistance to understanding evolution better is that it will threaten your belief, that you have your rational and spiritual sides all in a tangle?  Like you've been trying to change the light sockets with a granny smith?

You say that evolution is simply illogical.  I can't think of anything more inevitable.  I'm an ecologist and I spend a lot of time out of doors, observing organisms in their environments.  The potential power of natural selection to change organisms is striking when you see, for example, the zonation of different plant species and different phenotypes of the same species at different levels in a transitory lakebed.

I used to spend more time here lurking.  There are a lot of sharp people here who would be more than happy to discuss the science with you.  They've done it before with much more unhinged types.  Give it a go.
Posted by: JonF on April 09 2007,17:47

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,14:52)
I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Studying I believe.  Understanding ... you have a long way to go.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,18:15

FtK, if we showed up at your door, out of the blue, with a freshman biology test, what do you think you'd score?

(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 09 2007,18:20

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,09:16)
From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I noted previously:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, since my teen days, I always considered a conservative religious girl a good score ---- several of my early girlfriends were church girls (my father was a Nazarene minister at the time).  So uptight and so repressed, but once that repression fell away, oooooh la la . . . . . . . .  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,18:22

Uh oh, this thread's doing the CGH thing... page doesn't turn over at the right time.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 09 2007,18:24

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,12:20)
 I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not.

Some, like Dembski, are dishonest evasive deceptive liars.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,18:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What interested and impressed me was the science in his book, Finding Darwin's God. However, the last two chapters I did not get at all. I don't understand where his religious beliefs come from. I have no idea where they come from and I don't presume to know; it was, frankly, gobbledygook but at least they don't come from a vehement rejection of science that I've seen demonstrated by other people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've read his book as well, and I found it extremely lacking in evidence for macroevolution or common descent.  He also made grand claims that ID had been debunked and that the there existed evidence that the flagellum evolved.  If that's a fact, we wouldn't see scientists still writing papers trying to dismantle ID.

But, your quote above is exactly my point.  His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well.  So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.”  And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?

As for Wes' paper, I truly am not an expert on the EF and truth be told I’m not terribly interested in discussing it.  I believe that you people have a very legitimate point.  ~At this point in time~, it is still difficult to pinpoint exactly what is too complex to have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms.  But, at the same time, there is such vast complexity in nature that it is equally difficult to provide explanations of evolutionary pathways that explain what we observe in nature, not to mention providing empirical evidence that supports common descent.

I certainly support further research in attempting to answer these difficult issues in regard to evolution.  I do not support replacing evolution with ID because, in my mind, it’s a completely different concept.   Truth be told, I think the two concepts should be considered hand in hand.  I think it merely boils down to philosophical arguments that prevent people from rejecting either concept.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,19:06

George wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theistic evolutionist here.  And yes, I do base my belief in God purely on faith.  What else is there?  I'd be very curious to hear about concrete evidence about God.  I've yet to hear anything convincing to tell you the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Certainly, in the end, there is an element of faith that that leads a person to believe or reject God.  But, there are certainly lines of evidence that one can consider when choosing to accept or reject specific faith beliefs.  

Question:  What kind of TE are you?  You mentioned "God"... Christian?  Jew?  And, ~why~ do you adhere to your belief in God?  If you base your beliefs "purely on faith" what led you to accepting that faith?  Feelings?  How do you know your feelings are correct?  Do you care one way or the other?  Do you believe in specific things about God, or do you just believe there is a "God" out there somewhere ultimately responsible for your existence?
Posted by: blipey on April 09 2007,19:57

I can't agree with argy, ftk.  I think you are absolutely, 100%, a dyed in the wool lying for Jesus, dishonest, slightly-dangerous-if-allowed-to-make-policy-decisions type.

Is it any wonder that I think that?  What are we supposed to think about people who:

1.  Say they discuss science but never do
2.  Avoid every question of substance ever asked of them
3.  Always talk about what they did--SOMEWHERE ELSE
4.  Always claim that facts are negotiable?

Seriously, aren't you always claiming that liberal atheists are the ones who think everything is fine, just as long as everyone's happy?

Come on, it's conservatives that are always going on about how facts can be interpretted in different ways.  The evidence points in all directions, it's inconclusive...blah.

That's bullshit and you know it.

So, here are questions even easier than what I asked you before.  I don't want you to discuss theories, or even science, really.  This is what i want:

I want you, FTK, to list 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology.  Just type out the facts, no interpretation.  I want to see if you know what a fact is.  If youmake an interesting list, we might be able to discuss it.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,20:46

I had to boot a comment to the < Bathroom Wall >.

Sorry, but the rule here is, everbody has to give each other the minimal respect one would find in a college classroom.

edited to add: And blipey, you tone it down a notch too.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 09 2007,21:05

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)
FtK, if we showed up at your door, out of the blue, with a freshman biology test, what do you think you'd score?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is exactly how I feel. In the days of google, it is hard to test anyone's knowledge in these forums. But a short essay test, given away from the computer, would do wonders toward dispelling the legend-in-her-own-mind myth that FtK has even a minimal understanding of biology, evolution, and science.

Based on the two times I quizzed her and DT, using thought problems with no history on the creo/ID websites, she would fail a freshman biology test on evolution. But that's OK, because, as she tells us repeatedly, she really isn't here to talk about science.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on April 09 2007,21:09

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)
(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the very least, you should provide DaveScot with a suitable book. (I like < this one >.)
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,21:17

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 09 2007,22:09)
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)
(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the very least, you should provide DaveScot with a suitable book. (I like < this one >.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I liked < this one. > If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on April 09 2007,21:22

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)
I liked < this one. > If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not familiar with that text. I think < this one > is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,21:25

UD's and Davetard's comments about the Second Law have been so hilariously boneheaded and clueless to anyone who knows any physics that I had to go share them with Dave Heddle, whom I would never talk to ordinarily.

By the way, looks like his blog is going the way of the ID journals. There hasn't been any activity there in a while.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,21:27

Blipey,

I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...

You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance.  You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.  

True to my promise, I did just that.  I have always kept my word when I've said I was going to post about something.  You said, if I ever did post something about it, you'd be interested in discussing what I wrote.

But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about.  Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either.  What difference would it make if I did that?  Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else.  You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.  

And, Doc Bill, I'm not even sure how to respond to that crap you threw out there.  Are you okay?  Ya sound a little unbalanced.

btw, Stevestory, thanks for sending that one to the bathroom wall.
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,21:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well.  So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.”  And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because he mixed it up with quantum theory, that's why, and I didn't agree with his statement that the statistical nature of the position/momentum of subatomic particles meant that "we can never know some things about the universe." In fact that's one thing that we can know about the universe, that as one measures the position of a subatomic particle with more accuracy the momentum becomes less able to be accurately measured. It's something that we indeed do know. It's weird, but still an objective statement about phenomena.

Everyone I met who was deeply religious and who accepted evolution always hedged about the facts in some way, caricatured it, and he never did. And he doesn't come off as judgemental. I felt like I could talk to the guy without getting the standard horrified response that I do.

I don't believe his religion any more than I believe anyone else's. I can argue about theology from many theological points of view. I can also argue about literature from many theoretical points of view - that doesn't mean I need to believe that Little Dorrit actually existed once.

I know about theology because it's a part of anthropology. I'm interested in people, not gods, and I've met a lot of different people. The more you study different religions, the more inseparable it is from the material circumstances from which it arose, and the more it appears to be an invention of the human mind, like literature.

After reading his paper I believe that Dembski is well educated in theology as well, and I certainly don't believe in his religion, either.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,21:31

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 09 2007,22:22)
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)
I liked < this one. > If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not familiar with that text. I think < this one > is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stat Mech, I've only read < Huang >, and I understood less than half of it. If I went to grad school I'd probably make another effort. I might use Landau and Lifshitz though, everyone raves about those guys.
Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,21:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is exactly how I feel. In the days of google, it is hard to test anyone's knowledge in these forums. But a short essay test, given away from the computer, would do wonders toward dispelling the legend-in-her-own-mind myth that FtK has even a minimal understanding of biology, evolution, and science.

Based on the two times I quizzed her and DT, using thought problems with no history on the creo/ID websites, she would fail a freshman biology test on evolution. But that's OK, because, as she tells us repeatedly, she really isn't here to talk about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*.  How's that work for you?  

Now, you teach me.  You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~.  You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron.  

I await for my first biology lesson..
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,21:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we've been around the bush once with GULO. So maybe this would be a good time for endogenous retroviruses. I'll have time to discuss those tomorrow, but for an introduction, it's one of Theobald's 29+ that has been referenced a couple of times on this thread.
Posted by: skeptic on April 09 2007,21:42

Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused.  I missed soemthing over the last few months.  Was AFDave banned?  Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name?  What's the website that keeps getting referenced?  Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 09 2007,21:44

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:25)
By the way, looks like his blog is going the way of the ID journals. There hasn't been any activity there in a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No surprise there.  Who wants to get preached at all the time?  (shrug)
Posted by: argystokes on April 09 2007,21:46

Quote (skeptic @ April 09 2007,19:42)
Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused.  I missed soemthing over the last few months.  Was AFDave banned?  Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name?  What's the website that keeps getting referenced?  Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it might be AFDave part II, except this time Dave's a MILF nice young lady.
Posted by: blipey on April 09 2007,22:02

FtK:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey,

I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am also sorry I feel this way.  I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious.  I truly find you to be neither, and that is a sad thing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance.  You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While I certainly have left many comments on your blog, I believe that around 70 percent of them had actual content.  You see, that's really the point.  You complain that science in general is censoring the truth of ID, yet find no problem censoring things you simply don't agree with--regardless of the scientific or philosophical relevance of said things.

And we'll never really know will we?  If you'd do the hnest thing and really discuss the issues, people would see my 70 percent and the other 30 percent would never have been written.

As for the Hume bit, I'll certainly comment on that; I haven't read that particular post as yet.  I will; we'll see if you let me comment on it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about.  Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either.  What difference would it make if I did that?  Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else.  You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do believe you know nothing about either (and I don't feel I'm alone in this, either on this board or in the world in general).  But, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show me otherwise.  Just post something that is factual or that you hink is factual and we'd take it from there.  If I agree with what you post I'd tell you.  If you really, truly, actually posted something that you thought was factual and I thought not, I'd tell you my objection.  Then we could discuss it.  I'm wrong a lot, but I generally thank the people that tell me I'm wrong when they show me.

You have no interest in showing other people they are wrong.  You have no interest in learning about where you might be wrong.  You have an interest in telling people they are wrong and telling others that you are right.  Telling and demonstrting are different things.

By your actions you show that you have no interest in demonstrating.  You come right out and tell people that you don't want to discuss things; it is the very first thing you volunteer.  Am I supposed to take you seriously, or should I be allowed to wait until you do something serious?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You certainly have made many comments.  Very few of them having anything to do with science.  Your questions are of belief and faith and not of science.  It's hard to carry on a discussion when your level of understanding is an unknown.  While it would be possible to start at the beginning, many of the actual, working scientists on this board go through this all the time with AFDave, Paley, etc.  Forgive them if they don't want to start at the beginning if they don't have to.  But now that you've volunteered to start in 1st grade, it will be easier.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting.  This is what I and a lot of others have been asking you to do for some time now.  All of a sudden it's my fault that we aren't discussing science.  Nice.  Well, I accept, if you're actually willing to discuss science finally.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,22:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excuse me? ? ?

'Lay off'?

Um, up to now, you have explicitly refused to discuss science in any way. Does this now mean you've had a change of heart? You're now ready to start?

(And, uh, 'discussing science' does not consist of you making unsupported statements and then ignoring all our counterevidence. Right?)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,22:18

Quote (skeptic @ April 09 2007,21:42)
Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused.  I missed soemthing over the last few months.  Was AFDave banned?  Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name?  What's the website that keeps getting referenced?  Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK and AFDave are not the same person. Imagine AFDave's beliefs crossed with Dave Scot's personality, and put it in the body of a woman who thinks she's 'protecting children'. That's FTK.
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,22:29

If she wants to argue against common descent, she's taking on not merely the whole scientific community, but much of the ID community. What did Dembski's webmaster say about the matter?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I’d ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don’t have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I’m going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It’s simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on April 09 2007,22:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.

As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something.  I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you.  I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me.  

I found out that Richard had started a whole freakin' thread dedicated to ripping me apart.  Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.  It's irritating as ####.  So, I popped in to give Dave a piece of my mind.

Sigh...

I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this.  I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again.  ~I know how frustrating that can be~.  

So, I’ll go research the topic on my own and perhaps post something about it at my blog at some point. (That doesn't mean I'll write a post on it *tomorrow*, Blipey, so don't come to my blog nagging for it.)

BTW, Blipey, if you post at my blog, you seriously need to change your attitude.  I won’t post comments like the ones I’ve seen you put through to date.  Take a pill or something before you start putting down your thoughts so they don’t come out so nasty.

I don’t mind you people posting comments at my blog, but just try to be nice about how your respond.  Dave was doing ~really~ well there for a while until he flew the coop.  I just can’t deal with people treating me like shit on a consistent basis.  

And, Dave, if your only objective for commenting at my blog is to find ammunition to state endlessly that I "know nothing about science", than just quit reading my stuff and save yourself the agony.  My blog's not terribly popular so it's not as if what I say is going to have any affect on this debate whatsoever.  Probably 90% of my readers are pro-Darwin anyway.  So, just relax and quit worrying about proving my ignorance.

Have a nice evening everyone.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 09 2007,23:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something.  I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you.  I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



QED.
Posted by: blipey on April 09 2007,23:32

FTK:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Intersting.  Completely ignored the part where I said I was wrong a lot.  In fact, I'll give you a link to a place where I was wrong--admitted it, and apologized.  Joe Gallien likes to bring it up a lot.  Which is fine, I was wrong and it should be brought up lest I forger every once in a while.  You see, I admitted to Joe G that I was wrong and he irritates me much more than you do.

So, go here at Joe G's blog.  < A place where Blipey was wrong. >

And the point of my griping about the Hume thing was your two-faced view of the issue.  You often complain about people attacking IDers because of simple disagreement, or lack of evidence or whatnot.  You posted an entire screed about Hume in which you presented no data.  You just told us what an idiot you thought he was while not backing it up.  That was the substance of every single one of my Hume posts, bar none.

FTK:

[QUOTE]Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.[QUOTE]

What exactly has been "not true"?  Aside from the obvious sparring with Rich contained solely on this thread?  It seems that Rich had started a thread to call attention to your lack of a grasp on things science.  So, given that you came in not wanting to discuss any science, how exactly did you plan on clearing up this little issue?
Posted by: stevestory on April 09 2007,23:41

FtK seems really stressed out. I think what we need to tell FtK is, she needs to come to grips with not knowing science. She needs to take a deep breath and accept that she doesn't know much about these topics, and that's okay, because most people don't, and she needs to recognize that if you argue with the experts it's going to take a lot of work and you're almost certainly going to lose, and there are more productive ways to spend one's time. I don't know anything about Thai cooking. Because of that, I don't spend a lot of time in Thai restaurant kitchens arguing with the chef about how to make Peanut sauce. It wouldn't be a productive thing for me to do. It would annoy him, it would annoy me, and it wouldn't accomplish anything. And it would get me all stressed out, just like FtK is stressed out about this stuff.

Just chill out FtK. Do something productive. Nobody says you have to try to single-handedly bring down the last century of science, and it's not working anyway.
Posted by: Kristine on April 10 2007,00:17

That's why < I suggested that she pull back > and just read the material. I'm not an expert so I go on the internet because practically nobody that I know wants to engage the material at this level. But going on the internet and yakking requires a lot of reading, and it doesn't hurt to actually participate, such as working on a dig.

The best advice I ever got about learning other people's religions was from a Muslim who told me to learn about religion from people who practice their religion, not just from reading the books. I think that's good advice about science as well, but when I brought up Miller I felt like she was putting him down. I don't get it.

Oh, well, I just realized that I have less than a month to go before I'll be in the Galapagos. I'll blog about it when I get back and everyone's invited. Okay, Ftk?
Posted by: creeky belly on April 10 2007,00:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)
I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

I am not familiar with that text. I think this one is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry I missed this discussion, but I'd recommend a couple:
Statistical Physics: Landau and Lifshitz (part 5 of their epic series )
Statistical Physics: Wannier (starts nearly immediately with FLOT and SLOT justification)
Posted by: Louis on April 10 2007,05:16

FTK,

Oh sorry, maybe I got the wrong impression. When you came here originally you made comments to the effect that not much science gets discussed here and that you were keen to participate in a scientific discussion. Now you say you aren't interested in a scientific discussion. Well far be it from me to deny a lady the prerogative of changing her mind, but I'm confused! (Yeah, yeah I know, same shit, different day! ;-) )

I'm probably not the best person here to discuss speciation and the longer term evolutionary change mechanisms with you, but I know a thing or two about chemistry and I'd happily talk to you about the ideas that are floating around about abiogenesis. You might like that discussion better because we don't know precisely what happened (i.e. we don't know the specific route from "molecules to microbes") but we do know a heck of a lot about how things can happen and we have a few exciting clues about what did. It's a much less concrete area in terms of a specific pathway so you might enjoy it more than dealing with speciation and "macroevolution" where, I am sorry to say the data is much stronger in terms of specific pathways (and perhaps interestingly less strong in terms of general mechanisms*) and you'll simply get embarrassed if you keep insisting on your personal incredulity.

Cheers

Louis

*What I mean by this is that we know a lot of very detailed and quantifiable stuff about (for example) the specific mechanisms of micelle formation or polymerisation reactions but less detailed and quantifiable stuff about allopatric or sympatric speciation. This doesn't mean we know nothing about these modes of speciation, just that by virtue of the nature of the phenomena we are dealing with we can have better amounts of certain types of information about certain types of phenomena.
Posted by: jeannot on April 10 2007,06:10

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,22:29)
If she wants to argue against common descent, she's taking on not merely the whole scientific community, but much of the ID community. What did Dembski's webmaster say about the matter?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...Says the man on his blog, uncommondescent.com.
:D
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 10 2007,07:29

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,21:36)
For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*.  How's that work for you?  

Now, you teach me.  You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~.  You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron.  

I await for my first biology lesson..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

Well. actually, that was what I was trying to do on your blog before you cut me off.

I have never assumed that you know nothing. I think all of us know something, and are ignorant about other things; I've left comments on your blog about all the things that I don't know anything about.

I now understand that you accept lots of things that are wrong. If your readings in biology recently have been restricted to the writings of Walt Brown and Duane Gish, you have a head full of things that are wrong. I have learned, to my dismay over the years, that unlearning things is actually harder than learning things. And that is actually backed up by modern neuroscience (e.g. Zull's The Art of Changing the Brain).

Nevertheless, I'll tell you what I can do to help you get up to speed here. If your basic biology background needs upgrading, I can send you, free of charge, an intro college-level textbook. Since I coordinate our intro course every fall, I get lots of free books from publishers who want me to adopt those books. The pricetag to the student ranges from $85-120 (I know, it's a ripoff). But rather than have them languish on my shelves, I'd be happy to donate one to this cause. Let me know an address where I can send it, and we can start from there.

Oh, BTW, my comments on your blog are not meant 'to find ammunition to state endlessly that (you) "know nothing about science"'. I'd really rather not state that endlessly; I'd really rather discuss science. When can we start?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 10 2007,09:02

Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile.

I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog.

Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out?



< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html >
Posted by: k.e on April 10 2007,10:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,17:02)
Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile.

I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog.

Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out?



< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like it's where the Cyclops kept it's sheep, is it in America?
Posted by: Kristine on April 10 2007,10:06

I would be interested in an abiogenesis thread just for my own education.
Posted by: argystokes on April 10 2007,10:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this.  I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again.  ~I know how frustrating that can be~.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would be better to discuss that sort of thing on a lightly moderated forum, rather than a heavily moderated blog such as your own. And I don't think ERVs have been discussed extensively here, so people shouldn't be as cranky about it as they might be over, say, calibration curves for C14 dating.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 10 2007,10:14

Quote (Kristine @ April 10 2007,10:06)
I would be interested in an abiogenesis thread just for my own education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WARLOCK GRANTS YOUR WISH:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3902 >
Posted by: Louis on April 10 2007,10:28

What I really have to do is that longer more in depth discussion of abiogenesis I've been meaning to do for a few months now.

{blushes}

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 10 2007,10:39

Well, Blipey's comment got through on the < Humes review post on FtK's blog. > Ignore the first comment from Farfarman, who still hasn't read all of Monkey Girl and seems rather proud of that.

In a long post, Blipey asked some serious questions, in a respectful manner, and got this in return...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forthekids said...

   Well, thanks for your point of view, Blipey.

   Question: After reading my review, did you find anything misleading about Humes lecture? Anything at all?

   Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like wow, man...
Posted by: argystokes on April 10 2007,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you ever change your mind, here's Ashby Camp's rebuttal to Theobald on ERVs:  http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp (it's at the end). Of course Camp's arguments are flaccid, but if you have the curiosity to find out why, you'll have to start talking some science.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 10 2007,15:43

< FtK has responded to Blipey, > and even allowed Zach to post on her blog re the review of Humes's lecture. I just sent her a comment, and since I have no delusions that it will appear there, I will copy it here.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK wrote: I think that there comes a point when discussing certain scientific issues that you run right smack dab into religious and philosophical questions, and we just have to deal with them. When you hit that point where they merge, everyone needs to take a deep breath and allow for it to happen. Discuss and allow consideration of a variety of ideas. To cling tightly to one theory because it eliminates any chance of considering a bigger picture that may lead closer to reality, is putting a limit on what we can learn. Personally, I have no problem teaching every aspect of evolution as long as we are allowed to thoroughly question the theory and not allow it to lead to a dead end where we no longer search for answers but just assume that we have the “facts“.

Actually, we run smack dab into religious and philosophical implications rather than questions. And it is at that point that we need to ask ourselves if we are discarding scientific interpretations due to scientific disagreements, or if we are discarding them because of their religious and philosophical implications. You are on record as believing that we should "follow the evidence"; it is difficult to follow it if the religious or philosophical implications stand in the path.

And it is profoundly ironic when you write To cling tightly to one theory because it eliminates any chance of considering a bigger picture that may lead closer to reality, is putting a limit on what we can learn. Personally, I have no problem teaching every aspect of evolution as long as we are allowed to thoroughly question the theory and not allow it to lead to a dead end where we no longer search for answers but just assume that we have the “facts“.

Scientific theories, because they generate questions and testable hypotheses, rarely lead to dead ends. Even the dead ones, like Lamarckianism, led to something else once the tests and experiments disproved the theory. Science never assumes that we have all the facts; it is always looking to fill in the gaps and find a bigger picture. ID, on the other hand, is the archetypal dead end. Without a mechanism, it cannot  generate predictions; without predictions, it goes nowhere. It is already a big picture; there are no gaps. And it does, almost by definition, assume that we have all the facts that we need. By your standards, we shouldn't include ID in a science curriculum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 10 2007,16:19

She says



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists base their worldview on science and claim that science disproves the validity of the supernatural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I think they contend that the supernatural is beyond the remit of science. If it could be studied, it would be natural. Hence methodological naturalism. You can have supernatural - in philosophy, or theology, or in Arden's undercrackers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 10 2007,16:23

OH NOES, MY WORLDVIEW!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
sigh....I can’t speak for everyone, but I assure you I am no more insecure about my beliefs than you are of yours.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FtK is clearly empathic/telepathic, which is probably supernatural!

If the supernatural is being measured.. then a designer is inside of science!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 10 2007,17:48

Hi, ftk!

I was just wondering why you think it is that scientists and medical researchers and cancer investigators are coming around to the view that canines may be better research animals for modeling human cancers than mice are?

Evolutionary biologists are able to explain this puzzling fact, in part, based upon the more recent common ancestor shared by canines and humans, and the more distant one shared by mice.

I'm wondering what your explanation might be.  "Common design"?  If so, what rationale might the designer have had for designing dogs such that they are more susceptible to human-like cancers than mice?

Did the designer just like mice better?

Wouldn't it have been more convenient if mice had been designed so as to be the more useful cancer model?  After all, in other respects, their swifter generations, smaller size, greater fecundity, etc., make them much more tractable--and somewhat less soulful-eyed--research subjects.

Please feel free to share any religious or philosophical implications you feel may bear on the mice-dog-human cancer triangle.

But I'd sure appreciate it if you started with the scientific evidence, given how much you like to read original research papers.

Or, hey, if you don't like that one: how old is the earth?  How do you know?  If radiometric dating isn't reliable, why hasn't the earth cooled internally long ago?  Why hasn't the sun gone out?  

If radiometric dating isn't reliable, how can such fundamental constants as the weak force inform us about "fine tuning"?  I mean, if those extremely well-measured constants are reliable as indicators of "fine tuning" and cosmic design, why aren't they reliable when they cause atoms to decay in a finely-designed and scientifically-predicatable manner?

Just, y'know, wondering.

If none of those questions set your tall, blonde self to pitter-patting, just let me know what the problem is, and I'll try to come up with some issues that your tall, blonde, scientifically-astute self will warm to...!

All the best, Stevie P.
Posted by: skeptic on April 10 2007,17:56

Stevie, just wanted to point out that it is not so cut and dried when it comes to animal models.  It largely depends upon what system you're looking at.  Nervous system seems to favor canines, behavior - primates, long term oncology is still mice and rats (unless something has changed very recently).  Oddly enough, one of the best complete models is actually the pig, but swine are a pain is the @%! to manage in long term studies.  Just my 2 cents, not that it is relevant to ftk's issues.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 10 2007,18:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,09:02)
Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile.

I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog.

Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out?



< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I commented twice about this on FTK's blog @ 4 hours ago, and adapted your comment (with proper atttribution, I might add)... She learned of course at the Feet Of The MasterTard, so I am not surprised my comments didn't make it through moderation...Nada.  Zilch.  I guess ftk has a very fragile world view after all, and can't stand someone poking fun at her Sky God.  Jeezus!  She's lucky I didn't have time to 'hang around" and visit her on Good Friday!
Posted by: argystokes on April 10 2007,19:05

On her blog, FTK said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m not sure how to address your comment above, because I disagree with it completely. I will say that I believe it is asinine to actually believe that scientists have an “atheist conspiracy”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least she disagrees with Dembski,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uncommon Descent holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 10 2007,19:53

skeptic, you make some good points.  Rather than sound, um, dogmatic on the topic of canines as model cancer animals, I should simply have provided my source:

December 2006 Scientific American
"Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs"
Studies of pet dogs with cancer can offer unique help in the fight against human malignancies while also improving care for man's best friend
By David J. Waters and Kathleen Wildasin
< http://www.sciam.com/article....d_links >

Your thoughts would, of course, be appreciated.
Posted by: skeptic on April 11 2007,09:23

Very intersting, I'm going to have to look that one up.  My experience comes from controlled studies so I was not aware of this instance.  Thanks for the reference, I'll give it a look.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 12 2007,11:06

More FtK Hypocrisy here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=4820 >
Posted by: Ftk on April 12 2007,23:10

Here's one to add to your collection, Richard:

Scott, aka slpage, aka Doppelganger wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a sissy...

Why would a tough guy supposed former marine need dogs, chain saws, etc.?

All bluff and bluster, no balls.

Typical bully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That one won’t see the light of day at my blog.  

Now if it were someone other that Scott, perhaps I’d consider it teasing, but I've never known Scott to have much of a sense of humor, so I flicked it into space.
Posted by: Ftk on April 12 2007,23:14

Here's another:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...The wolf howls when the moon is full...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL -- no clue what was going on in the mind of 'ol anonymous.  

If I had to guess, it was probably Richard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 12 2007,23:22

Nope. I just post about your blog here now.

I like the way they go through, instantly. Also, I can engage is scientific discussion without evasion with people who are knowledgeable and who don't derive their 'reality' from a book from antiquity.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 13 2007,00:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or, hey, if you don't like that one: how old is the earth?  How do you know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please. Intelligent Design advocates just hate being asked that question.  :angry:
Posted by: slpage on April 13 2007,07:20

Seems FTK, aka FtK, aka IAFM, aka Diana, aka Lapdog, aka.... is censoring posts at her blog as usual.

A guy can't even point out how much of a pussy her new pal Dave 'built like a football player' Springer is...

Thats ok, I'll do it elsewehere...
Posted by: Ftk on April 13 2007,07:37

I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 13 2007,07:53

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:37)
I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be flattered.  I think it is a reference to Roman mythology.
Posted by: JonF on April 13 2007,08:13

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 13 2007,08:53)
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:37)
I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be flattered.  I think it is a reference to Roman mythology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More likely it's a reference to an especially obnoxious poster using that name at KCFS.  Diana was eventually banned.  I don't think FtK is Diana; Diana was noticably more perseverating on atheism than FtK.

The other names are probably KCFS trolls too, but I don't remember them.
Posted by: Ftk on April 13 2007,10:48

The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!
 
.....At the gate at midnight...


....Friday the 13th.....


So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!"

Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 13 2007,11:00

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:48)
The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!
 
.....At the gate at midnight...


....Friday the 13th.....


So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!"

Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hypothesis is that these are in response to DaveScot's (the former Marine and auto-dipwad millionaire) paranoid list of non-negotiable parameters for his upcoming meeting with Blipey (the evilutionist actor). I hope Blipey has all his shots; if he bites one of Dave's dogs, there will certainly be #### to pay.. And I hope he is wearing his St. Darwin medal at all times  :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 13 2007,11:13

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:48)
The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!
 
.....At the gate at midnight...


....Friday the 13th.....


So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!"

Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you could always use the EF to determine if there is a design behind the comments!
Oh, except you cannot, can ya?
Posted by: Jkrebs on April 13 2007,21:10

FYI: I'm virtually certain FtK has never posted under other names, and she certainly is not Diana from the KCFS forums.
Posted by: stevestory on April 13 2007,22:49

There's no reason FtK would have to resort to other names. I've never banned or disallowed her comments. This isn't an ID blog, after all.
Posted by: Ftk on April 13 2007,23:27

Hi Jack...and thanks!

ps: Stevestory - Jack isn't talking about this forum, he's talking about other places I comment at.
Posted by: celdd on April 14 2007,17:27

FTK:
As others have, I’m responding here because of your moderating policies on your site.  

I’ve noticed that you have progressively come to acknowledge evolution as valid, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it as valid between “kinds” (whatever you consider kinds to be.)  As Dave pointed out, your restricted definition of evolution isn’t the same as considered by science in general.

On the KCFS forum, you seemed to advocate for the views expressed by Dr. Walt Brown.  How do you explain the geologic record that shows, with hard incontrovertible evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence for a steady progression from one-celled life through life as is present today?  And furthermore, that the recent advances in biology such as DNA etc. confirm the relationships construed from the geologic record? If there was a creator, why not create all the various life forms at one time?  Are you saying that the “designer” has intervened millions of times to create the next species, and the species after that?

How do you explain the sedimentology that documents that there were the same suite of environments that there are today (deserts, alluvial plains, beaches, deltas, barrier bars, carbonate reefs, sabkhas, beaches, deep sea, etc.) throughout the geologic column, and the there is little evidence of deposits that were formed by a flood?  How do you explain the appropriate types of life are found in each of these environments?

Also, given that clays are formed only by weathering of other minerals (they weren’t part of the primordial earth materials), how do you explain the volume of mudstones, claystones, and shales in the earth’s crust?  Brown and other creationists seem to suggest that there wasn’t any significant weathering of earth’s minerals before the flood – just a mysterious mist.
Posted by: Ftk on April 14 2007,17:50

Hi celdd!!!  Gosh, all my old friends from KCFS seem to be showing up.  Fun times.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As others have, I’m responding here because of your moderating policies on your site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't know that I rejected one of your comments.  I don't know why I would have done that.  You're usually tame in how you carry on conversations with me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ve noticed that you have progressively come to acknowledge evolution as valid, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it as valid between “kinds” (whatever you consider kinds to be.)  As Dave pointed out, your restricted definition of evolution isn’t the same as considered by science in general.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That comment is unfair.  I have always acknowledged evolution as "valid".  There has been nothing "progressive" about that acknowledgement.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the KCFS forum, you seemed to advocate for the views expressed by Dr. Walt Brown.  How do you explain the geologic record that shows, with hard incontrovertible evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence for a steady progression from one-celled life through life as is present today?  And furthermore, that the recent advances in biology such as DNA etc. confirm the relationships construed from the geologic record?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, all of that is easy to claim in one paragraph, but I've read countless books and articles from both sides of this debate and have come to the conclusion that at this point in time, science has A WHOLE LOT OF WORK TO DO before they can make outrageous claims like the one you just made above.  

You may get there some day, and all power to you in filling in the gaps.  I have no intention of supporting anything that puts a stop to further research into evolutionary claims.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there was a creator, why not create all the various life forms at one time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you provide scientific evidence for that?  I can't.  Scientists are still searching for answers in regard to the origin of life.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the “designer” has intervened millions of times to create the next species, and the species after that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't think science has answered that question yet either.  

Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design.  As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently.

Gosh, I'm hoping the whole mob from KCFS doesn't show up or I'm going to have to quit my day job.

Hope all is well with you and your daughters.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 14 2007,18:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design.  As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We cannot rule out unicorns either.
You say "we can't rule out design" and "get that fact worked into your science" yet there seems to be a fact missing in that construction? "we can't rule out design" is an assertion, not a fact. Why can't we rule out design, exactly?
Should every paragraph in every school book have appended to it "or maybe it was in fact designed that way, we cannot rule that out".

And as to the status of the "earth, could be 4.5 billion, could be 10,000" thingy, let me ask you a specific question. You say


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you also feel the same way about geocentricism? Do you think that there's a good chance that in fact the sun orbits the earth and dissenting voices are being supressed? If not, why not? Why accept the consensus view in one case and not the other?
I mean "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth." (Joshua 10:12). Seems clear to me the author believed in "teaching the controversy" about geocentricism.
Posted by: Ftk on April 14 2007,18:19

Ugh....serious deja vue going on.

I'm not going there again.  Too time consuming.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 14 2007,18:23

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,18:19)
Ugh....serious deja vue going on.

I'm not going there again.  Too time consuming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


easy dodge. Do you at least have a link. Are these themes recurring alot?
EDIT: There is not enough time to teach all the thinks kids should know, never mind teaching stuff there is no positive proof for (only negative "we don't have a DVD of it's evolution" type stuff). So Until IDers can pony up some actual proof it's just not going to happen. As I asked in another thread, what is it you want taught?If it's "you cannot rule out design" that'll be a quick lesson!
Posted by: celdd on April 14 2007,19:08

Ftk:

From my perspective as a geologist for most of the last 40 years, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence (observations) from paleontology, geology (Stratigraphy), and biology (including molecular and comparative anatomy etc.) that together support the theory of evolution.  Essentially all new discoveries from all these fields fit in the framework nicely – maybe sometimes with relatively minor adjustments as is usual in scientific discovery.  

Although you want to restrict the term “evolution” to what you consider “microevolution,” scientists include what you term “macroevolution” in their understanding.  Thus, it’s confusing when you say you accept evolution, then it turns out you don’t really.  It’s frustrating that those in the ID camp do not seem to appreciate the full breadth and depth of evidence that there is.

Thanks for the best wishes – we’re fine.  My youngest is graduating from San Diego State next month and will be working for her teaching credential in Jr. High and High School science next year.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on April 14 2007,19:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gosh, all my old friends from KCFS seem to be showing up.  Fun times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Ftk!
(C.J. = Connor J)
If we got Josh and Joe Meert on here, it really would be old times wouldn't it?
Posted by: Ftk on April 14 2007,19:29

HI CONNER!  Gosh, this is fun.  

Hope all is well out there on the west coast!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 14 2007,21:31

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,18:19)
Ugh....serious deja vue going on.

I'm not going there again.  Too time consuming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Over a hundred posts and answering any real science question is somehow 'too time consuming'.

Besides, all points of view are equally valid. 10,000 years, 4.5 billion, it's all good. To have a position one way or the other means you're 'biased', which I'm told is very very bad.
Posted by: blipey on April 14 2007,21:58

Arden:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To have a position one way or the other means you're 'biased', which I'm told is very very bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only if you're biased against the TRUTH.  Besides, your lack of bias comes from swinging both ways. -homo.  wait, not homo, -bi.  oh, I'm confused. -dt
Posted by: k.e on April 14 2007,22:52

Quote (blipey @ April 15 2007,05:58)
Arden:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To have a position one way or the other means you're 'biased', which I'm told is very very bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only if you're biased against the TRUTH.  Besides, your lack of bias comes from swinging both ways. -homo.  wait, not homo, -bi.  oh, I'm confused. -dt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOUR CONFUSED ALLRIGHT POOFTERS; I'M QUADRA SEXUAL..... I LIKE DOING IT WITH QUADRAPEDS OR ALL FOURS ...THAT'S THE SAME RIGHT? MOOOO. I LIKE A BIT ON THE UDDERSIDE- ROFLGTG (rolling on floor gaffer taping gerbils)-dt
Posted by: stevestory on April 15 2007,00:09

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 14 2007,19:23)
So Until IDers can pony up some actual proof it's just not going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be totally down with teaching any ID paper which was published in the leading ID journal in 2006-2007.

< Oh wait there weren't any. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 15 2007,04:39

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,00:09)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 14 2007,19:23)
So Until IDers can pony up some actual proof it's just not going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be totally down with teaching any ID paper which was published in the leading ID journal in 2006-2007.

< Oh wait there weren't any. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, there may still be some spaces left
< Click here to apply for the 2003 ISCID Undergraduate Summer Workshop. >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This second annual ISCID Online Summer Workshop will be held on the web from July 28th - August 9th 2003. From its beginning ISCID has been a leader in harnessing online technology in innovative ways. Using software from digichat.com, ISCID will offer interactive lessons which will incorporate real time chat, discussion boards, and a suggested reading list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, if they have not updated their website in almost half a decade, do you really expect them to come up with some science too?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
609-924-4424 (general)
609-924-0582 (fax)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Try to call them and ask! There is no answer! If anybody does pick up (cheers Steve) my tape recorder is handy! I'll be asking when the next issue is coming out!
Posted by: stevestory on April 15 2007,08:16

For FtK:

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 15 2007,08:56

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the “designer” has intervened millions of times to create the next species, and the species after that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't think science has answered that question yet either.  

Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design.  As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess the people you should be waiting for are those who agree with you about design, like Bill Dembski and other ID theorists.

Bob
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 15 2007,11:20

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,08:16)
For FtK:

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That deserves being quoted, it is a very good point. I find it hard to believe that anyone of average inteligence can't spot the lies and evasions of the ID proponents after watching the arguments for any length of time. It is plain bloody obvious that one side (ID) is lying and dodging.
Posted by: blipey on April 15 2007,12:21

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 15 2007,11:20)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,08:16)
For FtK:

 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That deserves being quoted, it is a very good point. I find it hard to believe that anyone of average inteligence can't spot the lies and evasions of the ID proponents after watching the arguments for any length of time. It is plain bloody obvious that one side (ID) is lying and dodging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve's point certainly deserves to be quoted again.  Here's hoping that if it's seen enough, an answer will be forthcoming.  Doubt it, but you never know.  I also think stephen elliot's point actually leaves room for discussion as well.

It should be bloody obvious to people of average intelligence that IDers are lying, dodging, wankers.  However, I also think that sometimes when you are very close to a project, it looks good.  I've done a small number of shows over the years with some pretty talented people that were absolutely hideous.

Why did we do them?  Money is the cynical answer, but not the correct one I think.  I've quit projects that I saw as train-wrecks and others I've worked with have as well.  So, we must have thought we were doing good work at the time in order to stick it out.  Something else fell through--outside support (or directorial oversight), our own egos, something touched us about the piece that skewed our objectivity, etc.

I think that IDers have many things that work against their objectivity in this matter.

Cue "oh yeah, scientists are the ones who are really biased..."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 15 2007,14:45

FTK, some of the things you say on you blog as so funny they bear repeating!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For instance, when considering junk DNA, we may find that the evolutionary assumption is incorrect, and this may be an area of research that lends further support to ID. Besides that, common descent is irrelevant to the advancement of science, yet we consider it “scientific”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This old saw. Could you point me to the scientific peer reviewed paper where research into Junk DNA has generated support for ID?
Why is "scientific" in scare quotes?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you know, I also reject Darwinism because of it is also rife with intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to a specific example rather then just wave your hands about?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is packed with “scientific content”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, evolutionists have their token theists, just as IDists have their token atheists and agnostics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How amazingly ignorant.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are committing the *same crime* they accuse those *fundies* of doing. They want a theocracy as well, but their government would reject all consideration of the supernatural. There is no difference between their brand of preaching and a hard core fundamentalist preacher who wants to stop atheism in it‘s tracks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever hear of the Taliban?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, they’ve had to bypass Eugenie et. al. and let the the public know what they are up against. Sounds like the perfect plan for the second phase, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, coz when the scientists aint biting, gotta take it straight to the people where real scientists do their finest work.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dating techniques are considered by the “scientific community” to be unquestionable
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those scare quotes again. If you've got a problem with the dating techniques what is it? Or are you just getting your talking points from AIG now? Have you spotted a flaw in the dating methodology, or what?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is advancing science whether you care to admit it or not. These discussions over “the controversy” are pushing scientists to find answers to the questions that are being asked about evolution - the questions that have been overlooked or taken for granted for decades.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What scientists are finding what results to what questions? Do you have a list? I mean, it's not the leading ID science people is over at ISCID is it? They ain't picking up the phone!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, again, before you convince me that IDists are out to insert a specific religion (Christianity or whatever) into the public school system, you’ll have to show me specific evidence that this is so, and also provide me with the science curriculum that teaches those students about Jesus, Budda, Muhammad, ET, or whomever in the science classroom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe Lenny has asked you several times about this issue, and you have not responded. I also asked you for a bullet point list of a potential set of ID class talking points, what essentials should be covered to give ID a fair treatment.

EDIT: You say  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it poor science to consider other options when one explanation seems to be lacking the science to back up it‘s claims? Is it possible to detect design in nature due to the information and IC we find packed in living beings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that case please go < here >  and help them work out how. Do your best to prove it possible to detect design in nature due to the information and IC we find packed in living beings. If you cannot then logically it is poor science to consider other options when one explanation seems to be lacking the science to back up it‘s claims. And your contention is that ID is packed with “scientific content”

Have a nice day

< Link >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 15 2007,15:20

Awww, did FTK tuck tail and scamper back to her protected little cloister, where she can censor out all those unending questions that she doesn't want to answer . . . . . ?

What a shocker.


I guess they are, uh, just afraid to debate us, huh.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 15 2007,16:11

Eventually every single ATBC poster will have their turn to explain to FTK in great detail why her claims make no sense, and to then be ignored by her...
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 15 2007,17:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eventually every single ATBC poster will have their turn to explain to FTK in great detail why her claims make no sense, and to then be ignored by her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I < remarked >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whilst in no way wishing to cramp FTK's style, I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

a while ago. I rest my case.
Posted by: stevestory on April 15 2007,18:31

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 15 2007,15:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dating techniques are considered by the “scientific community” to be unquestionable
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. Reminds me of johnnie cochran on south park. "Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed 'jury'..."
Posted by: argystokes on April 15 2007,18:55

So, FTK, will you be providing support for Egnor's latest over at your blog?
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/post_18.html >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer. According to Dr. Novella’s reasoning, brain tumors ought to be generating quite a bit of "meaningful and even useful new information." Better neuroanatomy and better neurophysiology ought to be popping up "easily." Better frontal lobes and cognition, from cancer. Better temporal lobes and memory, from cancer. Better cerebellums and coordination, from cancer. If random mutations and natural selection—Dr. Novella’s "two stroke engine"—is the source of all functional integrated biological complexity, brain tumors ought to help our brains evolve in some way.

Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.

I'm just a rube, not a Darwinist from Yale. But I’ve never seen cancer make a brain better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that even a layman such as yourself can see the blatant stupidity of this reasoning. How can you continue to take these DI folks seriously?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 15 2007,18:55

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 15 2007,16:11)
Eventually every single ATBC poster will have their turn to explain to FTK in great detail why her claims make no sense, and to then be ignored by her...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, as I noted earlier, "discussing" anything with FTK is a waste of time.  Hence, my questions are not directed at her --  they are directed to any lurkers out there.

As I also pointed out, my questions make their point, whether FTK answers them or not.  I don't need her cooperation, I don't ask for it, and I don't care whether I get it or not.  She doesn't matter.  She's simply the vehicle through which I make my points.


But then, as ID is now dead, dead, dead, dead, there's not even any point any longer in fighting it.  So now I mostly just amuse myself by snickering and giggling from the peanut gallery as the IDers continue to make fools of themselves in public.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 15 2007,20:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, as I noted earlier, "discussing" anything with FTK is a waste of time.  Hence, my questions are not directed at her --  they are directed to any lurkers out there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, our FTK threads should just as well be retitled 'FTL' -- For the Lurkers.  :p

Think of it as a big flashing sign: People, this is your brain on Creationism! :O
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,00:28

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/check-it-out.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check it out...


I'm not exactly sure why, but this picture just seriously cracks me up. It's a picture of Eugenie Scott, who wants to stop creation science at all cost, and Ken Ham the anti-evolutionist. There they are looking like long lost friends standing in front of a dinosaur in Ham's new Creation Museum. .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



okay..



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ken Ham the anti-evolutionist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's also anti plate tectonics, cosmology or anything else that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible. That would make him a...

C...
Cr...
Creat...

Come on ForTheKids, you can do it!

I bet you think ken Ham is an IDer.. bless your cotton socks.
Posted by: Faid on April 16 2007,09:48

Quote (argystokes @ April 15 2007,18:55)
So, FTK, will you be providing support for Egnor's latest over at your blog?
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/post_18.html >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer. According to Dr. Novella’s reasoning, brain tumors ought to be generating quite a bit of "meaningful and even useful new information." Better neuroanatomy and better neurophysiology ought to be popping up "easily." Better frontal lobes and cognition, from cancer. Better temporal lobes and memory, from cancer. Better cerebellums and coordination, from cancer. If random mutations and natural selection—Dr. Novella’s "two stroke engine"—is the source of all functional integrated biological complexity, brain tumors ought to help our brains evolve in some way.

Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.

I'm just a rube, not a Darwinist from Yale. But I’ve never seen cancer make a brain better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that even a layman such as yourself can see the blatant stupidity of this reasoning. How can you continue to take these DI folks seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my god.

Is-is Egnor REALLY a brain surgeon?

See, this is what overspecialization does to our profession, people. We learn all ther is to know on one tiny aspect or trait, and we completely forget all the rest.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 16 2007,14:40

Quote (blipey @ April 15 2007,12:21)
Steve's point certainly deserves to be quoted again.  Here's hoping that if it's seen enough, an answer will be forthcoming.  Doubt it, but you never know.  I also think stephen elliot's point actually leaves room for discussion as well.

It should be bloody obvious to people of average intelligence that IDers are lying, dodging, wankers.  However, I also think that sometimes when you are very close to a project, it looks good.  I've done a small number of shows over the years with some pretty talented people that were absolutely hideous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


my bolding

While it does become obvious (the lies) to anyone who actually reads the arguments I can see the atraction of ID.

In all honesty when I first read about ID, I found it atractive. It did seem comforting to think that the idea of God was suported by scientific evidence.

It took a few weeks (maybe months) for me to realise just how "full of shit" the leading ID proponents where behaving.

As a result, I may be more angry/disgusted than average person here about the behaviour of the ID people. It hurts to be conned!
Posted by: stevestory on April 16 2007,14:59

While several people in the ID movement are dishonest--Dembski and Salvador especially--my original point was to see if their fake science journal was actually fooling people like FtK. I've asked her the questions 4 times now, and she's acting like she never heard them.

For FtK:

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: JohnW on April 16 2007,15:25

Quote (Faid @ April 16 2007,09:48)
Oh my god.

Is-is Egnor REALLY a brain surgeon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are some fields of medicine in which you should never, ever practice on yourself.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,15:25

Hey FTK,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A new < study > commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....d_f.php >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,15:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,15:25)
Hey FTK,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A new < study > commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....d_f.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fundies aren't really bothered by the STD thing, it's the lack of kids/ vectors for there mimteic virus to infect.
Posted by: Ftk on April 16 2007,15:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,15:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,15:25)
Hey FTK,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A new < study > commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....d_f.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fundies aren't really bothered by the STD thing, it's the lack of kids/ vectors for there mimteic virus to infect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,16:02

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,15:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,15:27)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,15:25)
Hey FTK,      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A new < study > commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....d_f.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fundies aren't really bothered by the STD thing, it's the lack of kids/ vectors for there mimteic virus to infect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
edit: And if I'm twisting your words you can defend yourself here! It's, I suppose, up to me now to find a quote of you where you say "only". I'm not going to look.
And while it may be true you have in fact (and you fully realize this as your "ace") never promoted abstinence "only" classes you have in fact promoted abstinence+something else. I'm asking you why bother to promote something that does not work+something that does work when you could spend all of your available $$ on the latter?
Or to put it another way, why promote abstinence at all if it's proven not to work?

Is it your contention that promotion of abstinence is effective in the presence of, say, good sex education? How do you separate out the effects and prove abstinence promotion works at all? Do we just take your word for it?

Just wondering!
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,16:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID predicts this.
:p

There's a ladder in your stockings, FTK.
Posted by: Ftk on April 16 2007,16:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, I DON'T SUPPORT ABSTINENCE ONLY CLASSES.  SO, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT USING TAXPAYER $$ TO SUPPORT IT.

I SUPPORT ABSTINENCE PLUS SEX ED CLASSES

Jeez, you people are dense.  Of course, this is the EXACT same thing they did to the Kansas Board of Ed.  The moderates screeched to the media that the board wanted to place abstinence only sex ed classes in KS schools.  THAT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!  The board supported ABSTINENCE PLUS classes.  I emailed some of them myself to be sure of what they supported.

Keep spinning my friends.  It'll catch up with you in the end.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,16:15

Apparently it doesn't work though, FTK. So why teach it? Teach the controversy! There are other preventive measures that don't work. I demand equal time for:

Crossing your fingers
Jumping backwards three times after luurve making
Imagining granny taking a dump during luurve making
etc.


Edit: I did dun a bad senance and havbe to edited it out two add a words.
Posted by: stevestory on April 16 2007,16:15

Hey FtK:

 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,16:18

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,16:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, I DON'T SUPPORT ABSTINENCE ONLY CLASSES.  SO, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT USING TAXPAYER $$ TO SUPPORT IT.

I SUPPORT ABSTINENCE PLUS SEX ED CLASSES

Jeez, you people are dense.  Of course, this is the EXACT same thing they did to the Kansas Board of Ed.  The moderates screeched to the media that the board wanted to place abstinence only sex ed classes in KS schools.  THAT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!  The board supported ABSTINENCE PLUS classes.  I emailed some of them myself to be sure of what they supported.

Keep spinning my friends.  It'll catch up with you in the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you or not?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, I DON'T SUPPORT ABSTINENCE ONLY CLASSES.  SO, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT USING TAXPAYER $$ TO SUPPORT IT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I think I clearly tried to differentiate there. I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect? Irrespective of whatever else you want to mix them up with!
Or do you think they teach how not to have sex on the same day they teach you how to?
To be clear then.
1: Sex Ed. Proven to help sexual health. Check
2: Sec Ed "the abstinence" lesson. Proven to make no difference. Not Check!

To say that you support two things and accept that one does not work (not that you have, so I guess you reject the study?), or at least admit it's controversial as I believe you have indicated by your caps, seems odd to me. Why bother with the thing that does not work? Why include it at all?
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 16 2007,16:23

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,17:02)
       
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,15:58)
 Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
edit: And if I'm twisting your words you can defend yourself here! It's, I suppose, up to me now to find a quote of you where you say "only". I'm not going to look.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't need to go look.  I'm going to step in here and state that I specifically recall FtK stating that she supported sex education including information about birth control.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And while it may be true you have in fact (and you fully realize this as your "ace") never promoted abstinence "only" classes you have in fact promoted abstinence+something else. I'm asking you why bother to promote something that does not work+something that does work when you could spend all of your available $$ on the latter?
Or to put it another way, why promote abstinence at all if it's proven not to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not sure what exactly you are going for here. It seems you are making the assumption that since abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, that any discussion of abstinence in sex education is wasted time. Is that really what you are saying?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is it your contention that promotion of abstinence is effective in the presence of, say, good sex education? How do you separate out the effects and prove abstinence promotion works at all? Do we just take your word for it?

Just wondering!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oldman, are you spoiling for a fight?  It sure looks like it to me.  What exactly are you hoping to get out of this?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,16:28

carlsonjok, are you suggesting that it may have a combinatorial benefit even though in isolation it has none? The study (small sample that it is) suggest that it is just as useless when used with real sex ed.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 16 2007,16:40

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2007,16:15)
Hey FtK:

 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that makes SIX times and counting.

Think we can get it up to triple digits?
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 16 2007,16:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,17:28)
carlsonjok, are you suggesting that it may have a combinatorial benefit even though in isolation it has none? The study (small sample that it is) suggest that it is just as useless when used with real sex ed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm mainly suggesting that FtK is not entirely unwarranted in her statement that she can't hardly say anything without someone trying to use it to bait her into a fight.  While I am not particularly fond of her avoidance of simple questions like "10,000 vs 4.5 billion", I do see an awful lot of extrapolation of what little she does say.

But, to your question, sex, as exuberantly joyous as it is, is not without consequences.  Some of which are, obviously, life-altering.  I think sex education should include discussion of that fact and should encourage teenagers to make intelligent choices. One of which is holding off until such a time as they can better deal with the consequences.
Posted by: stevestory on April 16 2007,16:43

I really want answers to those questions from FtK.
Posted by: Ftk on April 16 2007,16:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, forgive me!!  How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age.

How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!!  Far out.  

Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's .  But, not to worry!  If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option.

At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!!  Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class!  They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??  That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION.

The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will.

What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships.  There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect.  I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 16 2007,16:49

Seven times...
Posted by: BWE on April 16 2007,16:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,16:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, forgive me!!  How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age.

How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!!  Far out.  

Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's .  But, not to worry!  If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option.

At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!!  Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class!  They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??  That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION.

The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will.

What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships.  There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect.  I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, For the Kids?

Boy, I can't imagine how easy life must be when you just boil it all down to black and white. Tell me, how's that workin' out for ya?

If I surrender my soul to Jesus, who do I go to for instructions?
Posted by: BWE on April 16 2007,16:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,16:15)
Apparently it doesn't work though, FTK. So why teach it? Teach the controversy! There are other preventive measures that don't work. I demand equal time for:
...
Imagining granny taking a dump during luurve making
etc.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that one works.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,16:56

Interestingly, I learned the difference between a pastor and a priest today.


Pastors can marry but are Gay.
Priests can't marry but are kiddy-fiddlers.

Just thought I'd work that one in there.
Posted by: Ftk on April 16 2007,17:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.  They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.  Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.

Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.
Posted by: argystokes on April 16 2007,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get down from there, we need the lumber.

Steve, you might as well post the comment over at her blog. I think she'll let it go through.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 16 2007,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You not being one of them, apparently. You don't know unless you try. Thanks for the pics, BTW. I like your 'touching you toes' one, but I think the skirt was a mite short.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,17:08

carlsonjok,
I posted the link originally with no comment except the excerpt from the post. I never claimed that FTK supported abstinence only sex ed lessons initially, I just wanted to see if FTK would respond to the article one way or the other. Seemed relevant...
Of course people should be told the full story about sex, good and bad, but promoting something for purely traditional or religions reasons, or even political cannot be good. There's even laws about it in some countries.....

However, I could have been clearer in my follow on posts regarding what FTK did and did not say. Sorry FTK.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,17:11

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,17:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.  They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.  Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.

Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, I'll opt out of this thread and start another where we'll talk about this one. If that's what it'll take to get you to answer Steve's question.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 16 2007,17:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

So no answer to my question of whether plate tectonics was decided in public debates? Or why a 10,000-YO earth is totally plausible? DARN.  :(

(Do you even BELIEVE in plate tectonics?)

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's actually quite untrue, but how would you know that, not having tried?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your concern for 'thread width' is touching.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, you seem never to have tried. AFDave 'carried on conversations' here for NINE MONTHS, you can't even aspire to his standards?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not everyone shares your commitment to censorship.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just not up to it, eh? I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

But what will you do when you fail to get banned?
Posted by: guthrie on April 16 2007,17:39

Capable of serious discussion?  There's loads of us hanging around, its just that we can't be bothered dealing with someone who censors posts on their own blog.
At least you seem to have some sense of humour.

Have you tried the Pandas thumb?  Thats a lot less free range than here.
Posted by: Ftk on April 16 2007,18:02

Arden, you're as bad as Lenny and Oldman.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your concern for 'thread width' is touching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have any concern for your thread width.  

I'm saying it is impossible to carry on a descent conversation when some idiot posts 6-7 separate posts in a row, saying virtually nothing (other than they are are to stop creationists) and using one phrase from their opponents post for each of their separate posts.  When people pull that stuff, it's apparent that they are putting no thought in their response at all.  They see the first sentence they disagree with, get pissed, post, they go back and see something else, post again, etc.  Lenny is a mess.

And, some of you have some serious issues with religion that probably would be better handled by a professional.  I have no idea what happened in your past that got you to this point, but thank goodness there aren't many like you in the world.  Sheesh.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 16 2007,18:20

< >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 16 2007,18:23

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,15:58)
Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Because ID/creationism simply has nothing serious or useful to say.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 16 2007,18:27

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,17:01)
 Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm out to get you, FTK.

I am everywhere.

I am eternal.

Like cancer.

Muah ha ha ha ha ha  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 16 2007,20:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, some of you have some serious issues with religion that probably would be better handled by a professional.  I have no idea what happened in your past that got you to this point, but thank goodness there aren't many like you in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think you need to get out more.

IMO, your opinions about 'science' demand professional attention, but I doubt that'll happen.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 16 2007,20:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, at least if you ask Lenny a question, he answers it, unlike certain people I could name.
Posted by: stevestory on April 16 2007,21:26

Quote (argystokes @ April 16 2007,18:04)
Steve, you might as well post the comment over at her blog. I think she'll let it go through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't waste my time posting on ID blogs. I like open debate.

FtK:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...until I get banned that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've banned fewer people in my 9-month tenure than Uncommonly Dense has banned this week. And it's only Monday. You have to act like a real assh*le to get banned here, and you're not even close, FtK.

I don't even mind if FtK takes the same set of questions and answers them back at her little echo chamber and doesn't permit any response. She's not avoiding the questions because of us. She's avoiding the questions because she doesn't want to answer them.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 16 2007,21:29

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 16 2007,20:17)
Hey, at least if you ask Lenny a question, he answers it, unlike certain people I could name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arthur: Ask me your questions, Bridgekeeper. I am not afraid.

Bridgekeeper: What...is your name?

Arthur: King Arthur of the Britons!

Bridgekeeper: What...is your quest?

Arthur: I seek the Holy Grail!

Bridgekeeper: What...is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Arthur: (brief pause) What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?

Bridgekeeper: (confused) Well...I don't know...AAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
Posted by: stevestory on April 16 2007,22:07

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,18:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.  They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.  Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.

Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giving lame excuses for why she can't answer science-related questions is about as good as if she tried to answer them.
Posted by: blipey on April 16 2007,23:50

SteveStory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't even mind if FtK takes the same set of questions and answers them back at her little echo chamber and doesn't permit any response. She's not avoiding the questions because of us. She's avoiding the questions because she doesn't want to answer them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



my bolding

Of course this is true.  I'd like to ask another question of Ftk now:

When you take a private moment each night and think about the wonderful work you're doing for the kids, do you even answer these questions for yourself?  Seriously.  Have you ever answered them, even alone, even once?

Steve's question about science journals is not a science question.  It is a yes/no question.  We don't even require that you add anything (though it would certainly be nice if you did), just answer yes or no.

Here's my thought.  You won't answer because yes means that we can explore why you think that piece of empty (I mean actual blank pages, not just content) junior high journalism resembles a professional anything, let alone a science journal.  That would be embarrassing for you and the movement.

You won't answer "no" because that will be letting the enemy win.  It's a no-win for you, not a position I envy.

This also means that you have to increase the sphere of unanswerable questions to ANY quesstion ever asked of you on ANY subject.

This is why no one takes IDers seriously.  They have a pathalogical need to avoid discussion, people, thoughts, and data.

Do you really think that the world will just all of a sudden come over to the "light side"?  Will this happen in a religious epiphany?  If you don't think this, what plan do you have to bring the world over?  If you don;t have a plan to do this, what do you think you're accomplishing?

Thanks for ignoring in advance.
Posted by: Tom on April 17 2007,12:33

[QUOTE]
Have you tried the Pandas thumb?  Thats a lot less free range than here.

Yes, she did < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >

She did not last very long though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 17 2007,12:47

Quote (Tom @ April 17 2007,12:33)
[QUOTE]
Have you tried the Pandas thumb?  Thats a lot less free range than here.

Yes, she did < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >

She did not last very long though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you this Tom?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, in my opinion FTK is the female equivalent to Larry Fafarman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If so, bravo. :)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 17 2007,12:56

I think < FTK > must just have a program that writes these things for her:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by Forthekids on October 6, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Hi Lenny,

No, at this time, I won’t be attempting to carry on any type of serious conversation with you. Your comments in this thread send up quite a few red flags as to the type of conversationalist that you are.

I will say that I plan on tackling quite a few of your “questions” in various ways on upcoming blog entries at < http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/. >

Honestly, some of your comments actually help support my side of this debate. It shows the irrational attitudes and extreme bias of some of the Darwinists in this debate. But, I realize you can’t see that, so carry on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it's good to see her sense of humor is still robust:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m thinking that is probably part of Lenny’s plan. If he actually focused entirely on scientific content, he’d get clobbered. So, he doesn’t. He berates and belittles.

If you were familiar with me, you’d realize that I never back away from confrontation on these issues. I’ve spent two years in the KCFS forum and answered virtually everything thrown my way.

As much as you’d like to believe that ID is dead, it’s quite obvious that it’s stronger than ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tom on April 17 2007,13:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you this Tom?:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My secret identity has been revealed(nice catch Arden).

By the way, I have noticed throughout this thread that Ftk has said she had been banned at Panda's Thumb and other places.  For the last two plus years, I have been reading the Thumb and I have never come across a thread that said she was going to be banned(I could be wrong though).
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 17 2007,13:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,12:47)
[quote=Tom,April 17 2007,12:33]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Have you tried the Pandas thumb?  Thats a lot less free range than here.

Yes, she did < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >

She did not last very long though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you this Tom?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, in my opinion FTK is the female equivalent to Larry Fafarman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If so, bravo. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Despite all other things, FTK has a much better sense of humour than Larry ever did.

I do not agree with anything ftk claims as scientific, but she does seem (to me) more human than the average ID drone.

It is completely possible that I may be wrong though. Let's see how long she continues to bar comments at her blog while enjoying the freedom to post whatever she likes here.

I am betting that ftk can't understand (yet) why she isn't banned here.
Posted by: guthrie on April 17 2007,13:53

Well spotted, Tom.
Obviously my memory is really getting bad these days.

I'm pretty sure she has not been banned though.  Someone would have mentioned it, and you only get banned from the PT if you run around insulting people, which I do not believe she has been doing.
Willfully ignoring the evidence is another matter...
Posted by: guthrie on April 17 2007,13:58

That PT thread is a textbook example of that type of Creationist behaviour.

Also, a quick scan suggests she has bravely banned herself from PT, in order to avoid tricky questions.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 17 2007,14:09

Quote (guthrie @ April 17 2007,13:58)
That PT thread is a textbook example of that type of Creationist behaviour.

Also, a quick scan suggests she has bravely banned herself from PT, in order to avoid tricky questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MUST......CLOSE.......MIND!

:p
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on April 17 2007,14:36

If FtK is famous for anything, it's evasion of the issues. She likes to blab and make it seem like she knows what she's talking about, but when push comes to shove, she has nothing but lame excuses.

She was a recipient of my < Stupid Blog of the Week Award >, and in the linked post I brought up one of her KCFS forum acts of ignorance.  She had commented, in an age-of-the-earth discussion, that she thought that radiocarbon dating methods were unreliable, and that YECs  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... simply believe that some of the inferred interpretations involved in various fields of science are questionable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I asked her why she would accept the basic ideas of nuclear physics when they were applied to such things as nuclear reactors and hydrogen bombs, but reject them when they conflicted with her religious ideas.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a YEC accepts the science that results in MRI machines working and hydrogen bombs detonating and nuclear power plants producing electricity, but denies the efficacy of radioisotope dating methods, do you not see a conflict? How can the same science applied in different situations be "questionable" in one, and accepted without question in all of the others?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eventually she answered,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, I'm seriously on overload. Something has to give. I've got to think of a way to get a week's vacation on some cruise ship visiting exotic places, and during the down time I could lock myself up in a cabin having a ball researching all this stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like you are comparing apples and oranges. Let me give it some more thought. I'll add you to the list...

Just so you don't think I'm blowing you off or taking it seriously, I did discuss this with my husband and he pretty much thought the same thing. But, I'LL GIVE IT MORE THOUGHT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some 9 months later, she's apparently still thinking about it, which might explain her reluctance to discuss anything of substance here.  It looks like she needs many months, if not  years, to explain why she feels such confidence in spouting off about subjects even after she's admitted her ignorance in them.
Posted by: stevestory on April 17 2007,14:52

I'm bored with FtK. At least AFDave was willing to discuss some science with us. I encourage people to go out and advertise AtBC to new creationists, so we can get some to stop by and talk about science.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 17 2007,14:53

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 17 2007,13:49)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,April 17 2007,12:47]
Quote (Tom @ April 17 2007,12:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Have you tried the Pandas thumb?  Thats a lot less free range than here.

Yes, she did < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >

She did not last very long though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you this Tom?:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, in my opinion FTK is the female equivalent to Larry Fafarman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If so, bravo. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Despite all other things, FTK has a much better sense of humour than Larry ever did.

I do not agree with anything ftk claims as scientific, but she does seem (to me) more human than the average ID drone.

It is completely possible that I may be wrong though. Let's see how long she continues to bar comments at her blog while enjoying the freedom to post whatever she likes here.

I am betting that ftk can't understand (yet) why she isn't banned here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FTK most resembles Larry behaviorally, in their shared dogged, relentless persistence in espousing dumb ideas in the face of all counterevidence.

The two are certainly not identical: I agree that Larry appears to have no sense of humor whatsoever, and almost never invokes Jesus. Also, FTK doesn't pretend to be a legal scholar, and I doubt she's a holocaust denier. But most importantly, FTK doesn't come across as an unemployable mentally ill loner on disability.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 17 2007,15:05

Some 9 months later, she's apparently still thinking about it, which might explain her reluctance to discuss anything of substance here.  It looks like she needs many months, if not  years, to explain why she feels such confidence in spouting off about subjects even after she's admitted her ignorance in them.[/quote]

Jim - Good post.  I don't want to speak for FTK - she does such a good job of "not speaking" for herself, BUT it seems to me, playing amateur psychologist, that she hasn't answered you because she has no answer

Could  your question be the crack in dike, that causes ftk's world view to suddenly explode and inundate her mind with science?

Unless she decides to claim "goddidit, miracle" again, and retreat to her own little world, doomed to a life of denial by ID.

What's it gonna take FTK?  Can you really hate your kids that much, that you would doom them to living a lie?  It's your call Mom.  Open your mind.  Do it For The Kids.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 17 2007,15:06

I think she's given up here. Too sciency?

If I talk undergarments she might come back.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on April 17 2007,15:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,14:53)
... FTK doesn't come across as an unemployable mentally ill loner on disability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right--there's no evidence that she's on disability.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 17 2007,15:37

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 17 2007,15:07)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,14:53)
... FTK doesn't come across as an unemployable mentally ill loner on disability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right--there's no evidence that she's on disability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ba Dum - Ching!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 17 2007,17:54

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,12:56)
I think < FTK > must just have a program that writes these things for her:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by Forthekids on October 6, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Hi Lenny,

No, at this time, I won’t be attempting to carry on any type of serious conversation with you. Your comments in this thread send up quite a few red flags as to the type of conversationalist that you are.

I will say that I plan on tackling quite a few of your “questions” in various ways on upcoming blog entries at < http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/. >

Honestly, some of your comments actually help support my side of this debate. It shows the irrational attitudes and extreme bias of some of the Darwinists in this debate. But, I realize you can’t see that, so carry on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it's good to see her sense of humor is still robust:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m thinking that is probably part of Lenny’s plan. If he actually focused entirely on scientific content, he’d get clobbered. So, he doesn’t. He berates and belittles.

If you were familiar with me, you’d realize that I never back away from confrontation on these issues. I’ve spent two years in the KCFS forum and answered virtually everything thrown my way.

As much as you’d like to believe that ID is dead, it’s quite obvious that it’s stronger than ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She wants me.

I can tell.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 17 2007,20:56

FtK is typical of creationists and one should not be surprised nor disappointed at her lack of response to anything of substance.

Creationists have several traits in common.  First, they comfort each other.  You see this on creationist websites where it's all PTL and #### the Darwinists.  Second, when creationists venture out of their cloister they are very guarded.  Ask a creationist the age of the earth and it's like a deer in the headlights;  cat's got their tongue.  Flight instinct takes over and they run off yelling "unfair!" and declaim how mean the Darwinist's are for asking a question.

How many times, Lenny do you keep count, how may times have the questions been asked: what is the theory of intelligent design and how does it explain speciation?

What a mean question!  Evil Lenny!

However, all satire aside, it's clear the DI has fallen upon hard times.  For a start, cub reporter Casey Luskin has been replaced by a brainiac surgeon who demonstrates himself to be quite a devolved species from Phillip Johnson, op-ed pieces have dropped to zero, there are no school boards in the country pushing intelligent design.

For the moment, FtK and her creationist kind are washed up.  Old news.

But, as we all know, creationists are like locusts and have a 17-year cycle.  We'll be watching and waiting for the next outbreak.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 17 2007,21:22

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 17 2007,20:56)
How many times, Lenny do you keep count, how may times have the questions been asked: what is the theory of intelligent design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the past 25 years, I've asked that simple question of hundreds of creationists and IDers.

Literally hundreds.


Never got any intelligible answer.  Indeed, all I ever got were variants of two basic responses:  

(1) "Jesus saves !!"

or

(2) "I don't have to tell you".
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 17 2007,22:51

Lenny -

Or they go deaf.

At Kitzmiller Behe had no problem hearing questions from the Thomas More attorneys, but as soon as the plaintiffs attorney started asking questions Behe had him repeat nearly every single one.

Huh, age of the birth?  Bridge of the girth?  Edge of the firth?

Over and over again.

What to you think, another 25 years?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 18 2007,07:22

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 17 2007,22:51)
What to you think, another 25 years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a good possibility.

ID is dead.  Unalterably dead.  Dead, dead, dead.  Dembski and his pals will now do what Morris and his pals did after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling --- they'll grumble and complain  about the ruling for a few years until everyone stops listening to them, and then they'll go back to making their living by lecturing in churches and selling books to the faithful.  The rest of the world will ignore them utterly.

The Republicrat Party, too, is dead, dead, dead.  Their performance in the last election (and, I suspect, their performance in the next one) insures that they have zero political influence for the next few election cycles -- and already there is an insurgent movement within the Republicrat Party which recognizes that pandering to the fundies is now the kiss of death, and that the Republicrat Party, if it is ever to see political power again, simply must kick out the crazies.  If that happens, the fundie political movement, as a whole, will be dead, dead, dead.  Like the John Birchers, they will still wave their arms and yell a lot, but no one will pay them the slightest attention.

And not a second too soon, if you ask me.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on April 18 2007,15:05

Davetard weighs in at < FTK's blog >  on the VA Tech shootings, and stays in character, speculating on the religious/ethnic affiliation of the shooter:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them. There's also some speculation it's tied to an Asian gang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,15:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davetard weighs in at < FTK's blog >  on the VA Tech shootings, and stays in character, speculating on the religious/ethnic affiliation of the shooter:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave shouldn't be so eager to claim that members of 'mainstream' Christian churches don't kill people.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Dave is being true to tardy form. IT MUST HAVE BEEN A KOREAN MUSLIM! Yeah, just millions and millions of them.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's also some speculation it's tied to an Asian gang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shit you read on Little Green Footballs doesn't count as 'speculation', you stupid fat fuck.

Let's rewrite history: Charles Whitman was a Muslim, not a white Texan who'd been in the Marines. It's so simple now! Timothy McVeigh? Why THAT sounds like an Ay-rab name!

Once again, we see the sorry results of Dave's entire 'education' coming from his wife's subscription to Scientific American.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 18 2007,15:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like the John Birchers, they will still wave their arms and yell a lot, but no one will pay them the slightest attention.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny you should mention that. Along with autographed copies of "The Genesis Flood" and various IDC books, I also have a dinner program signed by Robert Welch himself. I don't recall exactly how I came across that thing.
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,15:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2007,16:15)
Once again, we see the sorry results of Dave's entire 'education' coming from his wife's subscription to Scientific American.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm starting to think he didn't even read those...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 18 2007,16:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >
And I suppose the higher up you are in those churches, the less likely you are to sin? DS is plumbing new lows with this.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on April 18 2007,16:47

I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.
Posted by: Faylen on April 18 2007,16:53

Hey, if Debbie Schlussel can continue to assert a muslim terrorist connection despite the evidence, imagine how much easier it must be for the UD crowd.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2007,16:55

Quote (Faylen @ April 18 2007,16:53)
Hey, if Debbie Schlussel can continue to assert a muslim terrorist connection despite the evidence, imagine how much easier it must be for the UD crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That and soccer and MJ...

< http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/06/michael_jackson.html >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on April 18 2007,17:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2007,16:55)
Quote (Faylen @ April 18 2007,16:53)
Hey, if Debbie Schlussel can continue to assert a muslim terrorist connection despite the evidence, imagine how much easier it must be for the UD crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That and soccer and MJ...

< http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/06/michael_jackson.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I never knew that my love of football meant I hated the US and all of the population. My eyes are opened and now I can see! Praise the LORD!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 18 2007,17:05

oops wrong thread!
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,17:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is dead.  Unalterably dead.  Dead, dead, dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you guys realize how often you keep repeating this mantra?  It's as though you're trying to convince yourselves, and evidently the repetition is comforting.

I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before.  People are curious at this point because the Darwinists act like raving loons the second ID is mentioned.  

The inference has been banned from the science classroom, but I think that probably makes it all the more intriguing.

I guess I should be thanking you guys... :p
Posted by: lkeithlu on April 18 2007,17:28

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,16:47)
I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He'd be surprised to know that the shooter's family belonged to a conservative Christian Korean church.  NPR did a story about the Korean community in the young man's hometown.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on April 18 2007,17:31

Quote (lkeithlu @ April 18 2007,17:28)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,16:47)
I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He'd be surprised to know that the shooter's family belonged to a conservative Christian Korean church.  NPR did a story about the Korean community in the young man's hometown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but they clearly weren't REAL christians. You should remember that he knows EXACTLY who is and isn't a Christian, being an agnostic and all...
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,17:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People are curious at this point because the Darwinists act like raving loons the second ID is mentioned.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as opposed to being the raving loons that created ID to begin with?

nice bit of projection yet again, there, FTK.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 18 2007,17:43

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,17:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is dead.  Unalterably dead.  Dead, dead, dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you guys realize how often you keep repeating this mantra?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  Every time the creationist/IDers lose in court.

Or introduce a legislative bill that never goes anywhere.

Or have most of their political supporters fail to get re-elected.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 18 2007,17:48

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,17:28)
I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if *you* noticed, but a higher percentage of the US population believes that space aliens are kidnapping people from their beds, than accept creation "science" or ID "theory".  Heck, a higher percentage of Americans still think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks, than accept creation 'science' or ID 'theory'.

Even when it comes to nutty beliefs, the ID/creationists are second-rate.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 18 2007,17:54

Quote (lkeithlu @ April 18 2007,17:28)
He'd be surprised to know that the shooter's family belonged to a conservative Christian Korean church.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, did the shooter believe that a fat old balding Korean guy is the Second Messiah and the younger brother of Jesus Christ, like Discovery Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells does?

Or aren't even mass murderers THAT nutty?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,18:04

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,17:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is dead.  Unalterably dead.  Dead, dead, dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you guys realize how often you keep repeating this mantra?  It's as though you're trying to convince yourselves, and evidently the repetition is comforting.

I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before.  People are curious at this point because the Darwinists act like raving loons the second ID is mentioned.  

The inference has been banned from the science classroom, but I think that probably makes it all the more intriguing.

I guess I should be thanking you guys... :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, FTK, do you think schoolkids should be taught that the earth is 10,000 years old?

You know, since you're so savvy about science and all...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, but they clearly weren't REAL christians. You should remember that he knows EXACTLY who is and isn't a Christian, being an agnostic and all...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, according to Dave Scot, if you belong to a Christian church but do something he disapproves of, that makes you a Muslim.

Only someone as objective as an agnostic could figure this out.  :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,18:37

Well, I doubt it will reveal him as a Muslim as per Dave Tard's prediction, but at some point soon we will have PLENTY of evidence as to Cho Seung-Hui's thoughts about religion:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- The man blamed for killing at least 30 people in Monday's shootings on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself mailed a package containing photographs and writings to NBC, authorities announced Wednesday.

The package included an 1,800 word statement described as "a manifesto" and 23 QuickTime videos showing Cho Seung-Hui talking to the camera and discussing religion and his hatred of the wealthy, MSNBC.com reported.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup. Definitely Islamic Asian gangs, Dave. Yup.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,19:56

in fact, details from some of those writings suggest that it was his complete disappointment with xianity itself that was one of the major factors he claimed was responsible for his "mission".

it was being discussed on the late news last night.

I'd rather suggest that xianity, while claiming to provide a rigid moral and support structure for people on the surface, ends up causing more mental anguish than not when you scratch the surface and quickly find the rampant inherent contradictions.

I could easily make the argument based on the evidence so far, that this person's psychological schism may have been in large part due to his discovery of these inherent contradictions, and that his church offered essentially no support to be able to discuss his personal feelings.

I'm sure that would all be lost on poor tardboy, though.
Posted by: argystokes on April 18 2007,20:13

The videos are up.
"Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ..."

Hmm, doesn't sound much like an islamoterrorist attack, does it?
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,20:26

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,18:28)
I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you noticed, but < both > < of > the ID journals have gone belly up. Nothing to publish. No science accomplished.

You're right about comforting repetition. I take comfort asking you basic questions you can't answer. To wit:

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 18 2007,21:00

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,17:28)
The inference has been banned from the science classroom...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the result that counts. The attempt to wedge ID into the science classroom was my primary concern, dispatched in Dover on 12/20/05 and not long after in my state (Ohio) as well. The rest is a pastime.

I actually don't believe ID is dead as a movement, any more than creation scifi died in 1986. The popularity of the Left Behind novels indicates that there will always be an constituency for imaginative Christian fiction.

But it's scientific pretenses are already badly atrophied (witness the deteriorated content of UD, the empty "journals" Steve has repeatedy asked you about, etc.), as was inevitable.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,21:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're right about comforting repetition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



she'd LIKE to think the repetition is on our side, but we've been hearing about the waterloo of the ToE for nigh unto 80 years now from the creationists.

again, really this ends up being more projection on her part.

projection and denial

denial and projection.

the neverending cycle of creationism.
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,21:30

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

    (The owner does not respond.)

    Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

    Owner: What do you mean "miss"?

    Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

    Owner: We're closin' for lunch.

    Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this journal what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

    Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the PCID...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

    Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

    Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

    Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead journal when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

    Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable journal, the PCID, idn'it, ay? Beautiful graphs!

    Mr. Praline: The graphs don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

    Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

    Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Jimmy Journal! I've got a lovely fresh review article for you...

    (owner hits the server)

    Owner: There, he moved!

    Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the server!

    Owner: I never!!

    Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

    Owner: I never, never did anything...

    Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO JIMMY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

    (Takes journal off the backup and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

    Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead journal.

    Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

    Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

    Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was about to publish! ID journals stun easily, major.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,21:36

yeah, but i bet they could do a < budgie job > on a terrier, if you asked around back.  I think Billy D was trying to dress up a fish just the other day.

I think they might also have a slug...
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,21:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
she'd LIKE to think the repetition is on our side, but we've been hearing about the waterloo of the ToE for nigh unto 80 years now from the creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...

Nope, personally, I think the ToE and ID can get along rather nicely together.  Though, I think the proponents of each will fight like children until the end of time (which might be very soon, if the global warming "experts" are right).
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,21:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
t's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, it's a solid theory, unless one tries to saddle it with something completely and utterly irrelevant?

exactly.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ToE and ID can get along rather nicely together
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sure thing.  just like heaven and he11, right?

ID's whole friggin point is a criticism of the ToE.  It produces no testable hypothesis, makes no testable predictions, and is entirely vacuous as an explanation of observed variability and evolution.  so, how, exactly, do those two work together again?

do spell that one out for us in detail, if you would be so kind.

this should be good.
Posted by: argystokes on April 18 2007,21:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vacuous comments don't become better when you add "lol" to the end of them.
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,22:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vacuous comments don't become better when you add "lol" to the end of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry about all the laughing, but this place does give me oodles of entertainment.   I like the way you all pat each other on the back and rave about your intellect.  But, readers would be hard pressed to find anything here that displays all that immense "intellect".  Though, lame jokes seem to be all the rage.

I gave my sister the link to this forum.   She always finds arrogant enlightened "intellectuals" highly amusing as well.  

She doesn't find Richard attractive, though.  She thinks I should never have sent him those pictures of me in a miniskirt.  She also asked if he was retarded due to the hat and the inability to write a decent sentence.  That took quite a bit of background information to explain!
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry about all the laughing, but this place does give me oodles of entertainment.   I like the way you all pat each other on the back and rave about your intellect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



pardon me, but where do you see that in this thread?

nice attempt to sidetrack, but no go sister. put up or shut up.  you made the assertions, now explain or retract.

you are being very disingenuous here.  should we point that out to your sister?

that rather than actually back up your false statements, you instead prefer to deflect into irrelevant and unrelated commentary?

is that the example you set for your kids to teach them about honesty?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,22:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you please tell us the correct way to work Jesus into the Theory of Evolution such that you think it will then 'work'?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like the way you all pat each other on the back and rave about your intellect.  But, readers would be hard pressed to find anything here that displays all that immense "intellect".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In which college classes did you learn that the earth is 10,000 years old?
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 18 2007,22:21

Time to check the scoreboard!

Number of ID classes in public school:  0

Number of ID classes taught in college:  0

Number of ID classes taught in Bible college:  0

Number of ID publications:  0

Number of ID publication websites:  -2

Number of genomes of macaques published:  1

Surprising fact of 2007:  macaques are genetically predisposed to install radios in cars.  ID theorist and sciency guy Michael Behe proposed that car radios fell out of apartment buildings and installed themselves into cars.  Behe's theory is in serious peril at this point in time.

Oh, and last but not least,

Number of scientific discussions by FtK:  0

Hang in there, FtK, you're batting 0,000!
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,22:25

she's at the plate, but seems to prefer playing with her hat.

heck, she hasn't even picked up a bat yet, let alone take a real swing at a pitch.

nothing new, though.  if you ever saw her posts on kcfs, it was the same thing.

when pressed: dodge.
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,22:31

We've got to get a creationist in here who'll talk about the science. FtK's evasions are boring the shit out of me.
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,22:34

FtK's sister, if you exist, there are some basic questions FtK can't answer. Maybe you could take a crack at them:

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,22:35

Gosh, Doc Bill, you've got all that, and you still aren't able to convince the public that the "all powerful" mechanism of natural selection is the only "intelligence" needed to account for everything in nature.  

I know, I know, Americans are, for the most part, completely ignorant and unable to process these issues like you "enlightened" sciency types are.

But keep talkin', because every word that comes out of your mouths is quite helpful to ID.  All the blatant anti-religious rhetoric only solidifies the fact that ya'll aren't here due to the science.
Posted by: blipey on April 18 2007,22:35

Crap.  I hate to be the one ask a real question again, but here goes.

Um, Ftk, could you please cite some data about how ID is so much more widespread than it ever has been?

I mean, what numbers are you comparing?  Where did these numbers come from?  What method was used to gather these numbers?

I know it's sciency and all, but it really is a simple question set that you should have no problems answering.  Don't ignore it.

You can claim that thhis is an intellectual wasteland all you want, but that only holds because of YOUR behavior.  If you'd like to talk science, it can be done.  However, the more YOU ignore the quite large portion of this forum that attempts to carry on serious conversation, the more you show your own lack of intellectual prowess.
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,22:40

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,23:35)
But keep talkin', because every word that comes out of your mouths is quite helpful to ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We spent about 10 million words here last year. Didn't help you guys publish < a single scientific research paper last year. > Keep blowing smoke.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,22:41

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,22:35)
Gosh, Doc Bill, you've got all that, and you still aren't able to convince the public that the "all powerful" mechanism of natural selection is the only "intelligence" needed to account for everything in nature.  

I know, I know, Americans are, for the most part, completely ignorant and unable to process these issues like you "enlightened" sciency types are.

But keep talkin', because every word that comes out of your mouths is quite helpful to ID.  All the blatant anti-religious rhetoric only solidifies the fact that ya'll aren't here due to the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you answer my questions, FTK?

I'll repeat them:

1) Can you please tell us the correct way to work Jesus into the Theory of Evolution such that you think it will then 'work'?

2) In which college classes did you learn that the earth is 10,000 years old?

If you only have time for one, then the first one is more important.

Thanks ever so. You're an honest sincere Christian lady, so I'm sure you want to answer all our questions.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,22:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know, I know, Americans are, for the most part, completely ignorant and unable to process these issues like you "enlightened" sciency types are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*yawn*

oh my, you're just such a little victim, aren't you?

"help! help! I'm bein' repressed! come see the violence inherent in the system!"

steve's right, you've gotten even more boring and evasive as time has gone by.

and here i thought that wasn't even possible.

why don't you at least admit that the ToE has NOTHING to do with "atheism"?  surely you don't need a college education to figure out that one out, right?  the only way someone would have come to that conclusion to begin with is if they were lied to.  so who lied to you, and why did you believe them?

that would at least be a start in reclaiming the honesty you seem to value in your religion so highly.

but you really aren't interested in honesty, are you?

none of you idiotic, horridly dissonant creobots ever are.
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,22:53

Well, Blipey, I'm certainly not going spend much time doing research work for you.  But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  

One of the "moderate" KS school board members alluded to the fact that ID is growing when she whined about it at a panel discussion at KU.  She stated that in '99 she received many emails from individuals in other countries questioning why there is such a problem with "creationism" here in the states.  In 2005, she received emails again, but this time they were complaining that the "problem" was in their neck of the woods as well.  

ID used to be a US "problem", but now it's EVERYWHERE.  Probably makes you want to go have a good cry, no??

Oh, and what about the recent Salk Institute Conference? Sounded like the scientists attending that shindig were absolutely frothing about the popularity of ID.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,22:57

Yes, and of course, there's also the massive body of scientific literature confirming ID. Just scares the shit out of us wicked liberals.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, Blipey, I'm certainly not going spend much time doing research work for you.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We know, you're uh, doing your own 'research'.

Anyway, FTK, can you take a minute to answer my main question?

I'll repeat it:

Can you please tell us the correct way to work Jesus into the Theory of Evolution such that you think it will then 'work'?

Thanks!
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2007,22:59

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,23:53)
ID used to be a US "problem", but now it's EVERYWHERE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no! ID is EVERYWHERE! (< checks ID's own journal >) Oh wait, it isn't. Keep blowing smoke.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so, if i show you statistics that show a far larger support base for astrology, would you then conclude that astrology is a better explanation for human behavior than sociology and psychology and biology?

the issue, as has been pointed out to you MANY times, is that ID is only relevant as an explanation of the observation of variability IF IT PRODUCES RESULTS.

since there are no results, and actually no possibility to even produce such given the current state of the ID "meme", it's completely irrelevant how popular or unpopular the notion is.

as you say, there are lots of ignorant, easily fooled americans...

such as yourself, say.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She stated that in '99 she received many emails from individuals in other countries questioning why there is such a problem with "creationism" here in the states.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



thanks for pointing out that ID is nothing more than repacked creationism, on the "rise" or not.

ignorance knows no bounds.  GW was able to convince much of the american populace that Saddam and 911 were directly linked.

don't mean it's so, now, do it?

your thinking here is rather pathetic.

you really can't do better than:

ID is popular, so it must be true!!!

I got a bridge to sell ya, lady.
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,23:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why don't you at least admit that the ToE has NOTHING to do with "atheism"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not a problem.  I truly, honestly, cross my heart hope to die, swear on a stack of bibles believe that the ToE has NOTHING to do with atheism.  It's merely a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less.  

But, atheists, on the other hand hold to the ToE and specifically the all powerful and majestic ~natural selection~ as their source of life and will go down fighting for it just as a theist would fight for their right to worship their particular brand of god.

How's that?  Will that work for ya?
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, atheists, on the other hand hold to the ToE and specifically the all powerful and majestic ~natural selection~ as their source of life and will go down fighting for it just as a theist would fight for their right to worship their particular brand of god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*sigh*

it would if it were any more accurate than your previous statement.

lies lies lies, yeah.

gonna get you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounded like the scientists attending that shindig were absolutely frothing about the popularity of ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and why shouldn't real scientists be concerned about mass hysteria based on the promulgation of lies by the ignorant and deceitful?

it ends up directly impacting the ability to disseminate real science.

very much like how toxic pollution deniers from large chemical companies disseminated misinformation and lies that lead to Love Canal.

scientists should be concerned about a mass movement of ignorance, don't you think?

for your own kid's sake, you should be too.

you just don't WANT to see that ID leads nowhere, and is causing measurable economic and educational damage, do you?

you simply will NOT be pinned down to even try to examine what ID really is, nor that it is compeletly vacuous.

here, try this on for size:

say all schools decide to teach ID instead of the ToE.

what then?

what predictions does ID make that will enable us to better understand how to treat diseases or cancer, for one minor example?

what are the actual implications of what you apparently want?  have you even spent the slightest amount of time thinking about it?

I can only conclude you have not, and perhaps are psychologically incapable of doing so without causing the complete collapse of your worldview.

but is that denial REALLY of benefit "for the kids"?

would you ignore global warming research because you don't like the results?

of what benefit would that be for your kids' futures, eh?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 18 2007,23:06

Hey! Over here, FTK! Answer my question!

You said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you please tell us the correct way to work Jesus into the Theory of Evolution such that you think it will then 'work'?

Then my questions about a 10K-year-old earth, pretty please?

C'mon, a nice Conservative Christian lady like you must want to *explain* herself...
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2007,23:07

Quote (Ftk @ April 18 2007,22:53)
.  But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Meanwhile, in the reality based community... >
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:10

hey, can you put astrology into that graph, just for kicks?
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,23:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the issue, as has been pointed out to you MANY times, is that ID is only relevant as an explanation of the observation of variability IF IT PRODUCES RESULTS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, you mean in the same way that macroev. and common descent have produced results?  [snicker]

Microev. has been vital to science, but scientists were aware of microevolutionary changes long before Darwin.

The rest of it is just window dressing for philosophical leanings.  If scientists had excluded the macro. mindset long ago, it wouldn't have had any affect on scientific advancement whatsoever.
Posted by: blipey on April 18 2007,23:13

Oh thanks, Ftk, I can do my own research.  Really.  You see, the question was really just to see if you'd actually looked at any data on the matter.  Or, are you just spouting talking points?  I think I know, but it's always nice to see it confirmed.

Here's the amount of research that I'm sure you're familiar with:

< A Google Fight >

While this is completey unscientific and meaningless, it does illustrate the point that even by your standards, ToE is kicking ID's ass.  But, Google Fights are not how real work is done.  For that, you need actual numbers from actual people.

You see, proliferation on the internet means almost nothing to the validity of the idea.  For example, there are millions of search results for "Holocaust Denial".  Did the Holocaust happen?

I'm just interested to know where you're coming from.  I don't know what numbers you're looking at.  Maybe they're different than mine.  You have an opportunity to enlighten me.  Most reasonable people (and practically everyone here) enjoy opportunities to both learn and teach.

Why are you backing away from an opportunity to teach?  If your numbers are better than mine, I'll say so.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2007,23:16

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 18 2007,23:10)
hey, can you put astrology into that graph, just for kicks?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< big bottom, big bottom, talk about mud flaps, FTK's got 'em. >
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,23:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the amount of research that I'm sure you're familiar with:

A Google Fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, hey, I think ID is doing darn well considering that it is literally banned from all educational systems due to Darwinists threatening the jobs of those who dare speak the words "Intelligent Design".

Can you imagine how many students google for ToE information throughout the school year?  It's all they've got, and they certainly need to research in order to get good grades.  So, obviously, the "ToE" is going to have many more hits in that respect.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:22

ROFLMAO.

pretty much exactly what i expected when astrology is added in.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, hey, I think ID is doing darn well considering that it is literally banned from all educational systems due to Darwinists threatening the jobs of those who dare speak the words "Intelligent Design".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lies.

show me an example of someone fired for mentioning the words: intelligent design.

there have been several teachers fired for teaching creationism in science class, and rightly so as it isn't science, and moreover falls legally under the establishment clause.

is it possible for you to speak the truth, at all??
Posted by: Ftk on April 18 2007,23:26

Well, boys, it's been fun, but I've got to go get some sleep.  Later...

[Richard, I'll be dreaming about you in your funky little Tard hat.]
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2007,23:29

Is your sister a creobot too?
Posted by: blipey on April 18 2007,23:31

Hey, RIGHT HERE!!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!

Ftk,

Why would you ignore the point that googling for something doesn't legitimize it?  I mean, seriously, you think that googling a thing makes it a serious intellectual concern.  I mean, I just googled it twice in the last few minutes for the previous post and I think it's bunk.  So, does me googling it mean that I believe in it?  Do you think that other people might be in the same situation?  have you heard of < Project Steve >?  Do you know what it means?
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, you mean in the same way that macroev. and common descent have produced results?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh, exactly how many published references did you need to conclude that "results" have been made?

a hundred?

two hundred?

no problem.

"observed instances of speciation" as a google scholar search will easily net you a hundred or so references published within the last 10 years.

the implications of common descent are so far ranging that you would have to be more specific.

did you mean wrt to direct medical applications like cancer research?

or the larger issue of explaining shared traits?

something else?

the first two areas alone would net you thousands of cites over the last ten years alone, and tens of thousands over the last 100 years.

no results???!!!

ROFLMAO!

man, i thought you were better informed than that, for some odd reason.

shrug.

or are you like behe, when presented with armloads of published manuscripts, wave them away as if they didn't exist?

that denial of yours is a pretty scary thing.  time for a visit to a mental health care professional, IMO.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 18 2007,23:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2007,23:29)
Is your sister a creobot too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why do i get the impression you are currently fantasizing about a creobot sandwich?

*shudder*
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2007,23:37

Special Guest Tard:

< http://www.smudailycampus.com/home....e92db5f >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forthekids
posted 4/18/07 @ 11:26 AM EST
Not much of a review, IMHO. It merely sounds like some rebel rousers looking for a fight.

And, evidently, the M in SMU should be replaced with another letter.
Post
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



erm, aren't you making ID theistic there, FTK?


Shhhhh ID = Jebus is a secret!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 19 2007,00:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

She always finds arrogant enlightened "intellectuals" highly amusing as well.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Always glad to help lighten someone's heart. I hope that you've passed on the link to the < "Advantages of Theft Over Toil" > paper; she shouldn't miss out on the humor potential there in one of the few peer-reviewed articles around that has "intelligent design" as its topic.

Oh, and this section from Judge Jones's decision should be a laugh a minute:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. [138]Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); [139]Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25.  The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. ([140]10:102-08 (Forrest)).

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post [141]Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in [142]Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-[143]Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept.  ([144]28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; [145]Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; [146]9:10 (Haught); [147]Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005).  Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important [148]Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know that I smile looking at that, because I wrote the program that matched up text from draft to draft, proving that the IDC textbook "Of Pandas and People" really started its existence as "Creation Biology". I can only hope you and your sister smile as well.
Posted by: argystokes on April 19 2007,00:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...
< >
Yep, growing like gangbusters all right.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,00:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 19 2007,00:12)
I know that I smile looking at that, because I wrote the program that matched up text from draft to draft, proving that the IDC textbook "Of Pandas and People" really started its existence as "Creation Biology". I can only hope you and your sister smile as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doff my Tard cap, Wes, and will happily buy you dinner for a job well done.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 19 2007,00:20

I'm going to repeat what I said about "open dialogue" in another thread here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The IDC "open dialogue" meme must be a recent invention. I registered to attend the 2002 IDC RAPID conference at Biola. I was in discussion with someone there about when I would present and about to mail off my registration fee when I got a call from the conference organizer. Dreadfully sorry, he said, but this is a closed conference, only ID advocates to attend. Perhaps I would be so good as to participate in some future, unspecified, ID and critics conference.

There was a second RAPID conference at Biola in May, 2006. The IDC folks learned something from the first: there was no pre-conference public statement that anything at all was happening at Biola. So this "open dialogue" thing is, at its oldest, less than a year of age.

< Weblog post on the topic >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's funny, having West and Chapman go on about their commitment to open dialogue, given what we know about their actions. I remind people in various of the talks I've given to watch with care what the IDC advocates do, and not just what they say. Whenever someone says "intelligent design" and "open dialogue" in the same breath, surely the appropriate response is a hearty laugh or guffaw.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 19 2007,00:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I doff my Tard cap, Wes, and will happily buy you dinner for a job well done.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm in the Lansing, MI area. If you are still in Chicago for a while, there's a chance I might actually get to take you up on that.

I was thinking that maybe I should have Diane collect on her way through Chicago this weekend, but given the sheer animal magnetism you seem to exert on women, I think I'll wait to collect it myself.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,00:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 19 2007,00:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I doff my Tard cap, Wes, and will happily buy you dinner for a job well done.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm in the Lansing, MI area. If you are still in Chicago for a while, there's a chance I might actually get to take you up on that.

I was thinking that maybe I should have Diane collect on her way through Chicago this weekend, but given the sheer animal magnetism you seem to exert on women, I think I'll wait to collect it myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PROBABLY BEST. I GOT THIS FEROMOnE AFTERSHAVE OFF THE INTERWEBS, I FOLLOWED A LINK FROM TEH DCA SITE. THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.

THIERS NO DEEP-END OR LIFE GUARD IN MY GENE POOL, WES.

Lemme know when you're rolling through!
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,00:52

ah, i didn't realize the michigan thing was an actual relocation.

weren't you hanging in the east bay a while back, wes?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 19 2007,03:05

Hey FTK,
I've not said a word since you had your little "explosion". Which was my intent, btw. Hard to rationalise the illogical huh?

Yet you've still not answered Steve's question. How dishonest! And it's been asked a dozen times.
Posted by: bystander on April 19 2007,05:41

-- removed --
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 19 2007,06:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 18 2007,21:00)
I actually don't believe ID is dead as a movement,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it is dead as an EFFECTIVE movement.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on April 19 2007,08:08

Quote (argystokes @ April 19 2007,00:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...
< >
Yep, growing like gangbusters all right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone else notice the < Similarity? >
Posted by: slpage on April 19 2007,09:05

Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,09:22

Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or an 'Asian gang member'.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,09:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or an 'Asian gang member'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,11:13

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or an 'Asian gang member'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.
Posted by: slpage on April 19 2007,11:14

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or an 'Asian gang member'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed not.  Trying to blame some supposed ideology or affiliation for the actions of an individual like that as an excuse to demean or villify said ideology or affiliation is pretty irresponsible and stupid.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,11:25

Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,11:14)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
   
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or an 'Asian gang member'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed not.  Trying to blame some supposed ideology or affiliation for the actions of an individual like that as an excuse to demean or villify said ideology or affiliation is pretty irresponsible and stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amen. My point is not to make some bogus claim that Cho Seung-Hui flipped out and killed those people because he's a Christian. My point is just that when Dave Scot claims that Cho Seung-Hui killed all those people because he's a Muslim, or an Asian gang member, or an atheist, or a member of a 'non-mainstream church', that Dave is basically full of shit. Simple as that.

But I don't expect Dave to get the point. It'd be more in character for him to make some snarl like "well, he might as well have been a Muslim, and that's good enough for me."

I find it grotesquely fascinating how so many wingnuts seem so desperate to recast Cho Seung-Hui in some fantasy image. The line of reasoning seems to be "he's famous for doing something horrible, therefore he must embody everything that I fear and hate the most". This is how people like DT can assume CSH of course must be some kind of Islamoatheist.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,11:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Islamoatheist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This reminds me of one of my favorite Fundies Say the Darndest Things quotes.  I can't find it right now, but it basically says that Athiesm is a subset of Islam.  Hmmm.  I know some people who need a dictionary for Christmas.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,11:42

Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Islamoatheist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This reminds me of one of my favorite Fundies Say the Darndest Things quotes.  I can't find it right now, but it basically says that Athiesm is a subset of Islam.  Hmmm.  I know some people who need a dictionary for Christmas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must mean < this >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FSTDT! Post of the Year for 2006

"No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."

Trinidad and Tobago, CARM [Comments (204)] [2006-Oct-01]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These people are professional tards. We advise the audience at home *not* to try this.

:O
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,11:51

Yep. That's the one.  Thanks for wading in longer than I could.  (And probing better than I did)

That's the only thing Arden's good at--probing.  In fact, when he was down at my boat last year, he was my little probie.  Ha!  I'm such a homo sometimes!  No, Arden is, ARDEN IS!  The Islamoatheists have me confused.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 19 2007,13:21

Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He might not say much from now on; so far he has resisted < this bait >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot wrote: I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them.

Let's clarify a couple of things. I might be willing to take that bet.

What are the "mainstream" Christian churches?

and

What's the bet? A bottle of single malt scotch?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's the bet? A bottle of single malt scotch?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL

whoever wrote that surely recalls Dembski's wager.

BTW, WD40 still hasn't paid up on that one, has he?
Posted by: Bing on April 19 2007,14:50

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 19 2007,13:38)
whoever wrote that surely recalls Dembski's wager.

BTW, WD40 still hasn't paid up on that one, has he?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now, is that fair?  I mean the guy's a cough-cough respected faculty member at a third-tier Baptist seminary.  There's probably some kind of rule about him going into a liquor store to buy the stuff.  If he can't buy, he can't pay?  

I wouldn't be too sure if he didn't have to sign something to that effect either, along with his Statement of Faith and acknowledgement of Biblical Inerrancy to take the job.  

He probably can't f*ck his wife standing up either, because that might lead to dancing.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 19 2007,17:58

Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,11:14)
Trying to blame some supposed ideology or affiliation for the actions of an individual like that as an excuse to demean or villify said ideology or affiliation is pretty irresponsible and stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  Like blaming evolution for, ya know, Hitler.  Or Stalin.  Or, uh, one of those bad guys.


(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,20:17

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 19 2007,13:21)
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He might not say much from now on; so far he has resisted < this bait >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot wrote: I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them.

Let's clarify a couple of things. I might be willing to take that bet.

What are the "mainstream" Christian churches?

and

What's the bet? A bottle of single malt scotch?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.  And Ftk actually censored this from that thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot, are you claiming that if this guy was a Christian he wouldn't have committed this crime?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was my entire comment.  I've since resubmitted it with a note to Ftk asking why in the world she would reject such a comment, yet allow DT to post such vile things about other religious and ethnic groups...oh wait, other relig...and, uh,   other, bad atheists, bad...

I get it.  :D
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,20:31

Oh, get real Blipey.  Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys.  

Obviously, Christians have gone off the deep end in the past.  Good grief... as if Christianity can keep all adherents completely unsusceptible to pain, grief, or whatever it is that causes people to lose touch with reality.  

I was trying to save you from looking like an idiot, but I'll certainly let it go through if that's what you want.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,20:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh, because he has said things like this before, and been entirely serious about it.

so much so, a couple of threads where he made similar comments were shut down by Dembski himself.

I think you give the man far too much credit.

oh, and btw, there's a list of a dozen or so more relevant (to you, that is) comments you need to address before you can expect anybody here to take you seriously again.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,20:59

Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)
Posted by: J-Dog on April 19 2007,21:06

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:59)
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One hoot?  A hoot & a half?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,21:06

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)
.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and yet he escapes censorship moderation!
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,21:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:06)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)
.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and yet he escapes censorship moderation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, I figure the guy needs a place to mess with you nasty 'ol meanies.  From what I understand you've banned him from posting here.  

Personally, I find him highly amusing.
Posted by: deejay on April 19 2007,21:17

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:59)
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk-

Should anyone take your views on IDC and science seriously?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,21:24

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:06)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)
.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and yet he escapes censorship moderation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, I figure the guy needs a place to mess with you nasty 'ol meanies.  From what I understand you've banned him from posting here.  

Personally, I find him highly amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's banned for threatening to hack this site, I believe - which seems amusing now after watching Lou/Janiebelle show the clueless dolt how to configure a blog.

I find him highly amusing too. That fat bloater / 220lb killing machine middleweight boxer NFL player, depending on how close to reality you live.*



*That was mean spirited. I loves ya Dave, you've brought me much joy and are my fave autodictor.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,21:37

Quote (deejay @ April 19 2007,21:17)
       
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:59)
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk-

Should anyone take your views on IDC and science seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL....probably not.  Obviously, I'm not a scientist.  I merely love to read and research about this topic.  It's a hobby (that I don't have time for).

As I've stated many times on my blog, I write about this stuff because I'm pretty much obsessed with the topic, and my husband can only take so much of my banter.  He finds it quite interesting, but not on the level that I do.  His eyes start to glaze over when I go on and on about something I've read.  

I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???

My friends and family know I'm into this stuff, and they occasionally ask me questions.  They take me seriously.  Usually...  :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,21:40

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,21:41

Hey Richard, how come I made Arden's signature line, but not yours!! :angry:

You better do something about that.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,21:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,21:46

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:41)
Hey Richard, how come I made Arden's signature line, but not yours!! :angry:

You better do something about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Sig. is full. I have a gold star from Pee Zed that is waiting to go in there, but I'm happy with the line-up there at the moment.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 19 2007,21:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
 Obviously, I'm not a scientist.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, not.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2007,21:51

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since


I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)


Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,21:55

ROTFLMAO...you're a mess, Richard.

Oh, btw, I grew up in the disco era, not the 50's.  Jeez, you're making me feel ancient!
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,21:59

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:59)
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


then why do you represent yourself as being "for the kids"?

you obviously take your blogging seriously.  I've seen your posts over on KCFS in the past.

you're lying again.

you #### well DO care what we think.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I write about this stuff because I'm pretty much obsessed with the topic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



if you're so obsessed, why don't you progress in it after all this time?

you still spout the same lies, misinformation, and ignorance both about evolution and ID that you did well over a year ago when I first saw your posts over on KCFS.

doesn't it concern you that you seem to be so stuck in a rut, considering it's a topic you're obsessed with?

If I spent over a year studying a topic, and learned nothing, I sure would be concerned.

shrug.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,22:10

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)
Oh, get real Blipey.  Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys.  

Obviously, Christians have gone off the deep end in the past.  Good grief... as if Christianity can keep all adherents completely unsusceptible to pain, grief, or whatever it is that causes people to lose touch with reality.  

I was trying to save you from looking like an idiot, but I'll certainly let it go through if that's what you want.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that does bring up a few questions now doesn't it?  It's really too bad that that means you won't be answering them.

You see, as Richard said upthread, "yet he goes uncensored".  You see, your complicity in allowing him a platform to dupe (not us, but the general readers of your blog, if you have any) without any comments clearing up the clearly vile nature of what he said means you're not only NOT FOR KIDS, but perhaps Dangerous for Kids.

Perhaps you should rethink the kinds of things that are allowed on your blog.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,22:36

I'm not lying.  I honestly couldn't care less what anyone in this forum thinks of me.  

And, yes, I was very involved at KCFS for several years, I was serious, and I learned a lot.  One thing I learned was that the most important issues in this debate are based on the ~interpretation~ of evidence, so if someone is set on a particular interpretation due to their philosophy or religion, there is no convincing them otherwise.  And, most of that significant "evidence" is based on historical inference, so it's next to impossible to refute.

My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others.  It's like a tennis match...one side points me to talkorigins, the other points me to trueorigins, etc., etc..  The ball will bounce back and forth literally forever.  

I do take my blog seriously, and I try to be fair to everyone who I think is at least trying to state their case politely for my readers.

But, as far as this forum is concerned, I'm just here for the laughs.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,22:41

Take a chill pill, Blipey.  I posted your comment.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,22:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I learned a lot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



about avoiding direct questions?

that's about all you've exhibited since.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing I learned was that the most important issues in this debate are based on the ~interpretation~ of evidence,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



the real question is whether the interpretation of a body of evidence is based on actual familiarity with the evidence, or blithe ignorance.

If i say the sky is blue because of invisible sky pixies, that's an interpretation of the readily observable evidence that the sky is blue.

is that a legitimate interpretation of the evidence, ya think?

you perhaps should have learned by this time how to evaluate whether or not an "interpretation" is based on actual testing, rather than wishful thinking.

but, then, that is the ONE thing you simply can't accept.

so invisible sky pixies it is then, eh?

this is EXACTLY the reason that creationists are damaging to the promulgation of actual, real science.

because they convince their neighbors and peers that the idea of invisible sky pixies is as legitimate as molecular composition and light refraction as an explanation as to why the sky is blue.

you are doing no favors to anybody by wallowing in your own ignorance for years.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,23:03

Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch.  

Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,23:05

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:03)
Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch.  

Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


there's a reason it's used so commonly, but it still seems lost on you.

why is that?

is it an apt analogy, or not?

if not, why?

you really don't want to explore these questions, do you?

doesn't that concern you in the slightest?

it should.

if you can challenge me that you really aren't wallowing in your own ignorance, still, after all this time....

why don't you get to it and prove it, then?
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,23:08

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,22:41)
Take a chill pill, Blipey.  I posted your comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet still don't understand why I had a problem with it being moderated.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,23:13

of course you do, blipey.

stop being glib.
Posted by: k.e on April 19 2007,23:14

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2007,05:51)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since


I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)


Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup I'm getting my visa now, but you'll have to wait a little, I haven't had all my shots yet. But when I do, I'm on my way. Do they have roads where you live? Do I have to bring my own toilet paper and water tablets? Do you have a satellite phone? I'm looking foward to a journey back to where modern civilization has yet to appear. Do the women folk still walk around topless with a bone through their noses? Dont worry I'll bring my own penis gourd, the ones you have aren't big enough.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,23:14

Because you were merely looking for a fight.  That's why.  Obviously, that comment isn't going to lead to anything productive.  Nonetheless, it's there now, so you can sleep peacefully.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,23:15

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:03)
Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch.  

Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One might say the same is true of "it's all how you interpretate-aroo the evidence".  Of course, you probably don't think that's true.

Which brings me back to a question I asked of you earlier:

Isn't it liberal, atheist, intellectuals that are supposed to be wishy-washy about what things mean?  Everything's okay as long as you believe it and all that?  How is it that you can take on this obviously liberal, immoral attitude while not puking?  As has been mentioned before, Do you not see a disconnect here?

In lieu of answers, you could just go away.  Otherwise, you might just have to be asked questions everyday--by people who have no interest in asking you questions--if you can believe that.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,23:16

tick tock, little missy.

lots of questions still remaining for you in this thread that don't require a phd in biology to answer by any means.

surely someone obsessed with the topic at hand could answer at least a few of them?

you are SO in denial.
Posted by: argystokes on April 19 2007,23:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, evolution's had a stranglehold on biology for nigh onto 150 years. I find it startling that you are unaware of this.
Posted by: Ftk on April 19 2007,23:19

Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,23:14)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2007,05:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
   
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since


I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)


Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup I'm getting my visa now, but you'll have to wait a little, I haven't had all my shots yet. But when I do, I'm on my way. Do they have roads where you live? Do I have to bring my own toilet paper and water tablets? Do you have a satellite phone? I'm looking foward to a journey back to where modern civilization has yet to appear. Do the women folk still walk around topless with a bone through their noses? Dont worry I'll bring my own penis gourd, the ones you have aren't big enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,23:23

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 19 2007,23:13)
of course you do, blipey.

stop being glib.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  I do.  I apologize for undetailed typing.  I meant, "Ftk, gee, you've posted my comment, yet you still don't understand why I was upset that it was moderated in the first place."

Other than that, I really don't know why I should stop be glib  under normal circumstances.
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 19 2007,23:23

hey FTK,


just remember the 5 D's of dodgeball:

dodge
duck
dip
dive
dodge

I think you would be excellent at this game too:

< http://www.dodgeballmovie.com/site/popups/games/five_ds.html >

be sure to read the instructions first, though, as they tell you how to CORRECTLY interpret what you will see on the screen when you start to play the game.

or, i suppose you could just make up your own interpretation and see how far that takes you.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Other than that, I really don't know why I should stop be glib  under normal circumstances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



of course not.

my comment was for effect only and not intended as a chiding or recommendation.

please, do proceed.
Posted by: blipey on April 19 2007,23:31

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:14)
Because you were merely looking for a fight.  That's why.  Obviously, that comment isn't going to lead to anything productive.  Nonetheless, it's there now, so you can sleep peacefully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely not.  I wanted to know if that's really what DaveScot thinks.  He has proposed a lot of things in the past that strain credulity, so I don't think that trying to understand his true feelings in this matter is really all that strange.

I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,23:37

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:41)
Hey Richard, how come I made Arden's signature line, but not yours!! :angry:

You better do something about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Cuz I grabbed the most absurd thing you've said so far before Richard could grab it, and it wouldn't be cool for Richard to duplicate it. You need to top that comment, then maybe you'll graduate to Richard.

So, really, YOU need to do something about that.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 19 2007,23:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But, as far as this forum is concerned, I'm just here for the laughs.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In addition to the earlier examples of stuff that get me smiling, here's another article that never fails to give me a lift, < Steve Reuland's "No Free Hunch, or the Quixotic Message" >.

Here's an article to accompany a read of Behe's cross-examination, < Matt Inlay's "Evolving Immunity" > article. It makes the essential humor of Behe's performance that much more accessible.

Yeah, there's plenty of laughs available. I'll try to drop in more later.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,23:41

Quote (argystokes @ April 19 2007,23:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, evolution's had a stranglehold on biology for nigh onto 150 years. I find it startling that you are unaware of this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this give us a hint as to what 'peer reviewed' articles FtK has read?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 19 2007,23:46

Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:19)
 
Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,23:14)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2007,05:51)
   
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
     
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since


I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)


Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup I'm getting my visa now, but you'll have to wait a little, I haven't had all my shots yet. But when I do, I'm on my way. Do they have roads where you live? Do I have to bring my own toilet paper and water tablets? Do you have a satellite phone? I'm looking foward to a journey back to where modern civilization has yet to appear. Do the women folk still walk around topless with a bone through their noses? Dont worry I'll bring my own penis gourd, the ones you have aren't big enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're on your own. C'mon, all your tough gal posturing, you should be able to handle it.

K.E's a bit weird, but hey, he's from New Zealand, how dangerous can he be?
;)
Posted by: bystander on April 20 2007,01:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 20 2007,13:31)
Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doubt it as he has posted similar stuff in the past. Weren't you saying earlier that Dave doesn't have a sense of humor. To say that they are just "joking" is a way the people in the ID/Creo world avoid criticizing the more extreme people
Posted by: bystander on April 20 2007,02:01

Somebody linked to this < Morton's demon > on PT I think. I think this would explain Ftk quite well.

On a similar note there are blogs criticizing a recent PNAS paper. Gee this is how science works. Complete opposite to ID where no criticism is allowed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 20 2007,02:09

Quote (bystander @ April 20 2007,02:01)
Somebody linked to this < Morton's demon > on PT I think. I think this would explain Ftk quite well.

On a similar note there are blogs criticizing a recent PNAS paper. Gee this is how science works. Complete opposite to ID where no criticism is allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WRONG. IF ITS NOT LIKE THE BIBLE SEZ THEN KEEP CRITICIZNG IT UNTILL THEY COME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 20 2007,05:43

Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,23:31)
I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, guys, am I the only one noticing that FtK is basically just a tease?  Her sole purpose here is to see how long she can keep you all foaming at the mouth and posting to the thread.  And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.  Now, I know it was fun to pummel AFDave for month after month on the same point.  But, he was serious in his convictions. Delusional, but serious.  ForPlay isn't. She is having you on.

So, let's take a moment to put a bow on this piece of work:

- She won't answer any question about biology.
- She won't, in fact, answer any question about science, no matter how innocuous.
- She won't acknowledge that the ID journal, PCID, hasn't been published in almost two years.
- 10,000 years?  4.5 billion?  What-evah!
- She gets a kick out of feeding Richard's delusions of sexy hawtness.
- k.e.'s aboriginal manliness scares her.

I think that about covers it. Now can we just stop all this nonsense? No matter what approach you try, she just isn't going to put out.
Posted by: k.e on April 20 2007,06:08

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 20 2007,07:46)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:19)
 
Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,23:14)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2007,05:51)
     
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
       
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since


I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)


Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup I'm getting my visa now, but you'll have to wait a little, I haven't had all my shots yet. But when I do, I'm on my way. Do they have roads where you live? Do I have to bring my own toilet paper and water tablets? Do you have a satellite phone? I'm looking foward to a journey back to where modern civilization has yet to appear. Do the women folk still walk around topless with a bone through their noses? Dont worry I'll bring my own penis gourd, the ones you have aren't big enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're on your own. C'mon, all your tough gal posturing, you should be able to handle it.

K.E's a bit weird, but hey, he's from New Zealand, how dangerous can he be?
;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DID I MISS SOMETHING HERE?
DID YOU KNOW THE NZ KIWI IS A SMALL NOCTURNAL HAIRY FLIGHTLESS BIRD WHICH EVOLVED THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GROUND PREDITORS? THE OTHER 2 LEGGED KIWI IS FAMOUS BECAUSE IT EATS, ROOTS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES.
I PUT AN EXTRA COMMA IN FOR STEVE BECAUSE HE LIKES THEM.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 20 2007,07:05

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,05:43)
Umm, guys, am I the only one noticing that FtK is basically just a tease?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like ID.


All mouth, no balls.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 20 2007,07:08

Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,16:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, forgive me!!  How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age.

How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!!  Far out.  

Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's .  But, not to worry!  If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option.

At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!!  Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class!  They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??  That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION.

The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will.

What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships.  There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect.  I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahahahaha. this is FTK's longest post on this thread I believe. Tease indeed.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 20 2007,08:27

Wow, I need to start trying to stay up later so that I can participate in these "discussions".  That's a lot of traffic at a time when those of us in the Central Time Zone are heading off to sleep. Of course, it is just the middle of the day for k.e.

I think carlsonjok pretty well nailed it. If you are here for the entertainment, that's what you'll get. If you are here for any serious consideration of science, forget about it. It's not gonna happen.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 20 2007,10:05

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,05:43)
- She gets a kick out of feeding Richard's delusions of sexy hawtness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I resemble that remark.


email me at TEH_SEXY_1@hawtmale.com

:angry:
Posted by: blipey on April 20 2007,12:14

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,05:43)
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,23:31)
I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, guys, am I the only one noticing that FtK is basically just a tease?  Her sole purpose here is to see how long she can keep you all foaming at the mouth and posting to the thread.  And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.  Now, I know it was fun to pummel AFDave for month after month on the same point.  But, he was serious in his convictions. Delusional, but serious.  ForPlay isn't. She is having you on.

So, let's take a moment to put a bow on this piece of work:

- She won't answer any question about biology.
- She won't, in fact, answer any question about science, no matter how innocuous.
- She won't acknowledge that the ID journal, PCID, hasn't been published in almost two years.
- 10,000 years?  4.5 billion?  What-evah!
- She gets a kick out of feeding Richard's delusions of sexy hawtness.
- k.e.'s aboriginal manliness scares her.

I think that about covers it. Now can we just stop all this nonsense? No matter what approach you try, she just isn't going to put out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely correct.  I think we're all aware of what Ftk is.  She would only be getting the better of us if we did not know.

I participate in this thread for 2 reasons:

1.  (the least likely), something may actually be said that causes Ftk to go, "WTF! Wow have I been an illogical dumbass!"

2.  She's the kind of person that shows up at local school board meetings in order to make her policy ideas heard.  The more completely bone-headed her behavior, the more I can show up and say, "Lookie here."  It's nice when we have reams and reams of material from creationists making them look incompetent.

3.  She's occasionally funny.

Oh, I have 3 reasons I participate in this thread:

1.  possible education
2.  defending our schools
3.  chance of hilarity
4.  too much coffee...

Four, I have four reasons...oh, I'll come in again.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 20 2007,13:10

FTK:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WTF? Do they? I suspect that porn is the one thing where it "comes naturally" :) FTK, what university did you go to?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 20 2007,13:26

In a < comment thread on FtK's blog > (in which FtK still needs to answer some questions from blipey and myself), Larry Farfaraway writes one of the classics of IDiot projection.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If nothing else, I have found ID to be highly educational. Before ID, I had no idea of the great complexity and organization of microscopic and chemical biological systems -- e.g., the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade. Darwinists are unscholarly and anti-intellectual because they want to prevent people from learning about these things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was emitted by a guy who writes book reviews without reading the entire book, and then brags about it. I'm pretty sure that the evil "Darwinists" are not responsible for Larry's lack of education on things biological; it seems more likely to be his very own synapses (or lack thereof).
Posted by: Bing on April 20 2007,13:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,13:10)
WTF? Do they? I suspect that porn is the one thing where it "comes naturally" :) FTK, what university did you go to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, they do, well in a kinda-sorta way.  I took Psy153(Psychology of Human Sexual Behaviour) at < Western > with < Bill Fisher > back in the day.  Some of my friends referred to it as F*ckSci.  We only got movie night once during the semester and we had to watch a movie about a couple of 70 year-olds getting it on.  All the moves seemed the same, only slower.

I'm guessing she wanted to go go Liberty, but didn't meet the admission requirements, so she had to settle for Patriot like Kent Hovind.


Posted by: Ichthyic on April 20 2007,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



don't be an idiot.  please.

of course we recognize she's TRYING to be a tease, but if you knew anything about her posting history, you also should know she's easy to play.

the more she posts and runs away, the more it becomes clear just what she stands for, and it sure as he11 ain't "the kids".

I shouldn't even have to spell this out at this point.

she simply can't answer basic questions about the topic she herself claims to be obsessed with, for YEARS.

the more this gets pointed out, the better, and if she thinks she's "playing" us, all the better.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 20 2007,14:07

Quote (Bing @ April 20 2007,13:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,13:10)
WTF? Do they? I suspect that porn is the one thing where it "comes naturally" :) FTK, what university did you go to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, they do, well in a kinda-sorta way.  I took Psy153(Psychology of Human Sexual Behaviour) at < Western > with < Bill Fisher > back in the day.  Some of my friends referred to it as F*ckSci.  We only got movie night once during the semester and we had to watch a movie about a couple of 70 year-olds getting it on.  All the moves seemed the same, only slower.

I'm guessing she wanted to go go Liberty, but didn't meet the admission requirements, so she had to settle for Patriot like Kent Hovind.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From FTK's phrasing, it sounds like she objects to those too!
How bizzare. Nobody forces people to take these classes.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 20 2007,14:25

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 20 2007,14:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



don't be an idiot.  please.

of course we recognize she's TRYING to be a tease, but if you knew anything about her posting history, you also should know she's easy to play.

the more she posts and runs away, the more it becomes clear just what she stands for, and it sure as he11 ain't "the kids".

I shouldn't even have to spell this out at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor should I have to explain the application of the idiom "gilding the lily" to interactions with a tow-headed haus frau from Topeka with a slightly neurotic obsession to get in the last word.  After (now) over 700 replies, do you think we haven't quite made that case yet?

Just asking........
Posted by: Ichthyic on April 20 2007,14:46

ask AFDave the same question.

how many replies in that thread?

2000?

more?
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 20 2007,17:26

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 20 2007,14:46)
ask AFDave the same question.

how many replies in that thread?

2000?

more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I suppose the number of posts it takes to make a point all depends on who your target market is.  If it is AFD or TfK, I think the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of never. For most everyone else, probably far less.

But, since this whole thread is apparently consensual and mutually enjoyable, I withdraw my objection.  Feel free to continue doing what y'all are doing. I'll just hang out over on the UD thread where the tard is a bit more varied.   ;)
Posted by: blipey on April 20 2007,22:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll just hang out over on the UD thread where the tard is a bit more varied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



True that.  This thread will probably wither at some point for that very reason.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 21 2007,01:47

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,17:26)
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 20 2007,14:46)
ask AFDave the same question.

how many replies in that thread?

2000?

more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I suppose the number of posts it takes to make a point all depends on who your target market is.  If it is AFD or TfK, I think the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of never. For most everyone else, probably far less.

But, since this whole thread is apparently consensual and mutually enjoyable, I withdraw my objection.  Feel free to continue doing what y'all are doing. I'll just hang out over on the UD thread where the tard is a bit more varied.   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you are taking this too serious. Nobody here thinks that ftk is making any points. People are just having some fun and educating the like of me in the bargain.
It is all good. Watching a creationist dodge reasonable questions etc.
I particularly like ftk criticising this blog for not discussing science enough while also stating she will not answer any scientific questions. This is very funny.
I doubt that any regular here expects ftk to change her POV, but they do show how ridiculous she is.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 21 2007,05:12

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 21 2007,01:47)
I doubt that any regular here expects ftk to change her POV, but they do show how ridiculous she is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just here to laugh at her.

It's all that ID/creationists are good for anyway.  After all, it's not as if anyone takes them seriously anymore.  (shrug)
Posted by: Kristine on April 21 2007,12:51

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 20 2007,06:05)

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,05:43)
Umm, guys, am I the only one noticing that FtK is basically just a tease?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like ID.


All mouth, no balls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep! A tease. Right on. And so is < some little mathy preacher >, too. The bacterial flagellum compensates for a certain something, if you ask me. :)

ScaryFacts told me that < I have balls >. (And why was I complimented by that? 'Cause I was.)  :p
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 21 2007,18:43

Apparently I hit a nerve, causing FtK < to close the comments on this thread >, and accuse me of "causing more hatred."

I respectfully disagree with that accusation. Read it for yourself and see.
Posted by: Ftk on April 21 2007,18:52

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 21 2007,18:43)
Apparently I hit a nerve, causing FtK < to close the comments on this thread >, and accuse me of "causing more hatred."

I respectfully disagree with that accusation. Read it for yourself and see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you need to remember that it's not all about you, hon. I've had to remind you of that in the past.

I stated that "You've all had a chance to get your digs in now".  That was refering to ~everyone~ who commented on that thread, including me.

I knew that post would probably flair up a few emotions, and now it's time to put a stop to it.  At a point, it just become counterproductive to keep after each other.

Carry on...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 21 2007,19:17

Quote (Ftk @ April 21 2007,18:52)
I stated that "You've all had a chance to get your digs in now".  That was refering to ~everyone~ who commented on that thread, including me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, thanks. I guess I needed the reminder, even though I can't begin to count how many things you've had to be reminded of in the past. But let's explore this a bit further, and accept that it's not about me at all.

Since my last post was aimed at DaveScot, were you imagining that he might comment with something hateful, and you would have to choose between blocking that comment OR living with his invective?

That would be a nasty dilemma, I agree. So it was a clever move to block all further comments. Bravo!
Posted by: blipey on April 22 2007,01:12

Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 23 2007,10:17

In case you hadn't noticed, FtK posted this blog message yesterday.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Worth the read
Walt Brown has worked for 20+ years exploring a YE interpretation of scientific data, and over the years, has offered some fascinating theories. What I like most about his work is that it is very comprehensive. He has an eye for being able to see the big picture.

He has added a section to his website on the Grand Canyon. He has made many trips to the Grand Canyon over the years to conduct field work, and recently led a group in exploring his conclusions. Interesting read.

He also provides his take on global warming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I sent her a comment, but it seems not to have made it through "moderation". Perhaps she is still irritated by my musings about DaveScot's bet on the religious background of the VT killer. Or whatever. But since she has posted a new blog post or two, and several comments have come through moderation in the interim, I'm assuming that my comment will never see the light of day over there. So I'm posting it here.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK

Why, exactly, is this "worth the read?" Where, exactly, have any of Walt Brown's theories about "hydroplates" been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? If it is not peer-reviewed, why do you believe it, unless you have a lot of background in geology?

Most importantly, do you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the Noachian flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon? Please tell me if you do, and I will immediately cease reading this blog and pestering you with scientific questions. And you might feel better about yourself, having finally shed that ill-fitting disguise of "it's all about the science and the search for truth" in favor of those comfortable creationist robes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 23 2007,10:34

It shouldn't take a double-doctorate more than a couple of minutes to figure out how not to welch on a bet involving single-malt scotch.

- Order online from a supplier within the state in question, like < Mission Liquor >.

- Find a price at a liquor store local to the bet winner and send them a check via the mail. It is legal to send checks via USPS. The bet winner can then go buy their bottle.

That this is beyond the capabilities of either WAD or DSS is not surprising.

Update: On looking at the original comment, it appears that DSS is capable of some flexibility, as he did suggest a Paypal exchange of sufficient funds for a particular brand. That just leaves WAD.


Posted by: Ftk on April 23 2007,10:39

For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave.

Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments?  Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy.  

The only people who read this forum are die hard ID bashers.  What do I care if you come over here and tattle.

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

Have a great day.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 23 2007,11:03

Quote (Ftk @ April 23 2007,10:39)
For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave.

Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments?  Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy.  

The only people who read this forum are die hard ID bashers.  What do I care if you come over here and tattle.

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

Have a great day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not sure what "nark" means to you, but I am pretty sure that most meanings have little or nothing to do with pre-schoolers.

But to set your mind at ease, no, I'm not going to post any more rejected comments. In fact, you rejected another one yesterday, and I didn't bother to bring it up here, since I think this one is more important.

In this case, by avoiding the question on your own blog, and asserting here that you are "open-minded" with regard to the age of the earth, you make the conclusion unavoidable that I should not even bother to read, much less comment on your blog. The evidence for the age of the earth is overwhelmingly against the creationist notion that it might be less than 10,000 years. The fact that you even pretend that "science" supports you in this argument implies that scientific evidence will never play a role in convincing you about anything. Reality will not ever be allowed to trump faith, either in your head or on your blog. That is sad. Reality is all that I, or any scientist, can bring to the table.

So please go back to your trademark smarm and ooze, preaching to your choir, rooting for DaveScot in his battles against evilutionists, cheesy-poofs, and blipey, and don't worry that this particular scientist will ever darken your comments again.
Posted by: blipey on April 23 2007,11:05

Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's just goofy.  Do you really not see why that's goofy?  Let's do a little word substitution:

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of which state the Kansas City Royals play their home games in, and I've mentioned that in the past.

You know, some people say it's Missouri, others say it's New York.  I think there are good explanations for both.

Is it really that hard to take a stand on this issue, Ftk?  I don't particularly care which side you take.  But it would seem that this is an issue in which it is just plain goofy to sit the fence.

In lieu of actually answering the questions, how about you tell me why it isn't goofy to sit the fence on this one?
Posted by: blipey on April 23 2007,11:13

I might as well as you this here as well, Ftk, since you can't seem to not read this forum--it's kinda like chocolate cheese cake, huh?

Ftk posted this as the last comment in a discussion thread on her blog:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a life outside of this debate. Do you???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was in lieu of answering some questions I posed to her.

I then asked her why it was that she had several dozen (I believe over 7 dozen) more comments in this discussion than I have.

Could it be that I occasionally ask her to support her accusations, assertions, and lies?  This probably doesn't sit right with her--being super busy and all, not having enough time to actually get into it with we who don't want to discuss science and all.

It is tough to answer queastions while simultaneously posting over 150 blobs of drivel.

So, Ftk, I ask, "Do you have a life outside this discussion????"
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 23 2007,11:40

Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
< http://www.farehamwinecellar.co.uk/0....g=en+UK >
a bad choice, do you?
Posted by: k.e on April 23 2007,12:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 23 2007,18:34)
It shouldn't take a double-doctorate more than a couple of minutes to figure out how not to welch on a bet involving single-malt scotch.

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL, Classic !!!!!!!!

He's subtle.  <snicker>
Posted by: blipey on April 23 2007,12:18

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,11:40)
Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
< http://www.farehamwinecellar.co.uk/0....g=en+UK >
a bad choice, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
Posted by: k.e on April 23 2007,12:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



US RETIRED WAR HEROS ONLY DRINK MEKONG IN MEMORY OF OUR BROTHERS IN ARMS. WHERE DO YOU THINK I GOT THE HAIR ON MY CHIN, HOMOS!

*Mekong whiskey, is 35 proof, and it is not aged. The date of bottling Mekong is printed inside the label.
This brand is named after the river that flows through Cambodia and Vietnam. It has similar properties to Sang Thip, but with one notable difference: if you upend a bottle of Mekhong in a glass of water in such a way that the pressure of the water does not allow the whisky to escape the bottle, a clear liquid will be seen to dribble into the water. This is glycerine, used to artificially boost the alcohol content, which can cause blindness if consumed in large quantities.

Happy drinking...
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A132193 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2007,13:06

Quote (Ftk @ April 23 2007,10:39)
For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave.

Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments?  Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy.  

The only people who read this forum are die hard ID bashers.  What do I care if you come over here and tattle.

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

Have a great day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WAH WAH WAH.



Just them them go through and we're all happy.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 23 2007,13:22

I dunno about you, Rich, but I was much cuter than either of those guys when I was a baby.


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 23 2007,13:36

Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,12:18)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,11:40)
 
Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
< http://www.farehamwinecellar.co.uk/0....g=en+UK >
a bad choice, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW! Just blody wow!
You have one #### of an expensive taste in malts sir. The only one on your list of favourites that I have tried is the Laphroaig. "LeepFrog" is the only malt I would add something to (only a cube of ice though). The taste is just too strong for me (flavour rather than ABV [although the ABV is higher than most, it is still #### smooth]).
I bow to your incredible knowledge of the malts. Glenfiddich is good enough for me.
Mind you, I consider Jamesons good enough to drink straight.
Posted by: JohnW on April 23 2007,14:03

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,13:36)
Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,12:18)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,11:40)
 
Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
< http://www.farehamwinecellar.co.uk/0....g=en+UK >
a bad choice, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW! Just blody wow!
You have one #### of an expensive taste in malts sir. The only one on your list of favourites that I have tried is the Laphroaig. "LeepFrog" is the only malt I would add something to (only a cube of ice though). The taste is just too strong for me (flavour rather than ABV [although the ABV is higher than most, it is still #### smooth]).
I bow to your incredible knowledge of the malts. Glenfiddich is good enough for me.
Mind you, I consider Jamesons good enough to drink straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice?  ICE?  In bloody Laphroaig?

I know this board is pretty casual about banning people, but surely this is going too far.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2007,14:13

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2007,13:22)
I dunno about you, Rich, but I was much cuter than either of those guys when I was a baby.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want to hand feed you cheesy-poofs!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 23 2007,16:12

Quote (JohnW @ April 23 2007,14:03)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,13:36)
Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,12:18)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,11:40)
   
Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
< http://www.farehamwinecellar.co.uk/0....g=en+UK >
a bad choice, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW! Just blody wow!
You have one #### of an expensive taste in malts sir. The only one on your list of favourites that I have tried is the Laphroaig. "LeepFrog" is the only malt I would add something to (only a cube of ice though). The taste is just too strong for me (flavour rather than ABV [although the ABV is higher than most, it is still #### smooth]).
I bow to your incredible knowledge of the malts. Glenfiddich is good enough for me.
Mind you, I consider Jamesons good enough to drink straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice?  ICE?  In bloody Laphroaig?

I know this board is pretty casual about banning people, but surely this is going too far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry! But Laphroaig just overwhelms my tastebuts when drunk neat. What can I say in my defense? OK, nothing I guess.

Please forgive me, but I know not what I do, etc.

I like peaty malts, but laph.... leep frog tastes just too #### strong.
Posted by: jeannot on April 23 2007,16:27

Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,11:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the difference between "age" and "interpretations of the age"?
Does the Earth have a defined age for you?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2007,16:30

Quote (jeannot @ April 23 2007,16:27)
Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,11:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the difference between "age" and "interpretations of the age"?
Does the Earth have a defined age for you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"interpretations of the age" has an extra layer of evasion. For FTK, it's all about her way of looking at things as [scarequotes] scientists [/scarequotes].
Posted by: JohnW on April 23 2007,16:42

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,16:12)
Quote (JohnW @ April 23 2007,14:03)

Ice?  ICE?  In bloody Laphroaig?

I know this board is pretty casual about banning people, but surely this is going too far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry! But Laphroaig just overwhelms my tastebuts when drunk neat. What can I say in my defense? OK, nothing I guess.

Please forgive me, but I know not what I do, etc.

I like peaty malts, but laph.... leep frog tastes just too #### strong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try a splash of water.  Ice just numbs the tastebuds - you might as well save your money and drink the cheap stuff.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 23 2007,16:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Am I the only one here who has serious doubts that FTK has any idea how professors act?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 23 2007,17:38

Quote (Ftk @ April 23 2007,10:39)
Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments?  Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, we know.

And we know why.
Posted by: Bing on April 23 2007,18:02

Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,12:18)
No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm currently partial to a wee dram of < Poit Dhubh >, 30yo.  It's rather outrageously priced, but it's my only vice.

I agree on The Balvenie, it's lovely.  

A friend wanted to clean out his whisky cupboard and held a party he called "The Culling o' the Herd."  He had 19 different bottles, all in various stages of consumption.  Hired a piper, we all wore our kilts, ate haggis, it was big fun.  We killed 12.

The guest of honor at the party was the reason he needed to cull the herd.  It was a < Highland Park 25yo >.

(A trivial note aside, my wife recently sold one of our whippet puppies to a fellow who's father was a master cooper at Highland Park.  Family legend has it that Da' was given a case of HP 50 yo as a retirement gift.  Oh what I wouldn't give for a nip of that!)

Sláinte mhath!
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,20:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 20 2007,00:19)
FTK re KE:

I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you're kidding here or serious. If you're serious, I can understand how showing up in the middle of things, some of KE's posts could look dangerous and weird. Thing is, the capitalized aggressive comments are a joke. Davescot is well-known for making loud, dumb threats. People here jokingly spoof those threats, and the spoofs are usually either capitalized or boldfaced, based on Davescot's fetish for boldfaced comments. Davescot isn't as bad as he used to be, Dembski tightened up his leash last summer after too many people complained.
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 23 2007,20:54

I have not tried the Balvenie port aged, but I have consumed a good amount of the double-wood, which was more in my price range.

I am sorry, but I found the Laphroaig to be hideous.  I mean, I drank the whole thing eventually, but no - not again.

And Bilpey, I can say where the Royals play because I WAS THERE.  Thank you, Ken Hamm...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 23 2007,21:03

Sorry, dudes, but REAL MEN drink Jack Daniels.



;)
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,21:12

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 23 2007,21:54)
I have not tried the Balvenie port aged, but I have consumed a good amount of the double-wood, which was more in my price range.

I am sorry, but I found the Laphroaig to be hideous.  I mean, I drank the whole thing eventually, but no - not again.

And Bilpey, I can say where the Royals play because I WAS THERE.  Thank you, Ken Hamm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bought some of the double wood stuff for a friend for an xmas present. $50, I hope he enjoyed it.
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,21:16

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 23 2007,21:54)
I am sorry, but I found the Laphroaig to be hideous.  I mean, I drank the whole thing eventually, but no - not again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL reminds me of a conversation at my last engineering job.

Him: Oh jesus god such-and-such beer last night was terrible. Just terrible.
Me: That bad, huh?
Him: Oh yeah. I could barely choke down the case.
Posted by: Ftk on April 23 2007,21:57

Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2007,20:50)
Quote (Ftk @ April 20 2007,00:19)
FTK re KE:

I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you're kidding here or serious. If you're serious, I can understand how showing up in the middle of things, some of KE's posts could look dangerous and weird. Thing is, the capitalized aggressive comments are a joke. Davescot is well-known for making loud, dumb threats. People here jokingly spoof those threats, and the spoofs are usually either capitalized or boldfaced, based on Davescot's fetish for boldfaced comments. Davescot isn't as bad as he used to be, Dembski tightened up his leash last summer after too many people complained.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve,

No, I'm not serious, and yes, I understand the capital letters & the Dave connection.  That's pretty obvious.

Bear in mind that I never plan on being "serious" here.   I just get a kick out of watching you people act like complete goofballs.
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,22:19

Quote (Ftk @ April 23 2007,22:57)
I just get a kick out of watching you people act like complete goofballs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And we get a kick out of creationists who have to duck simple questions. Here's some for you to duck:


Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's < fake science journal >? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?
Posted by: blipey on April 23 2007,22:52

John W:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try a splash of water.  Ice just numbs the tastebuds - you might as well save your money and drink the cheap stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is good advice, stephen.  Occasionally a whisky might need a tiny "wakeup".  If this is the case, a wee splash of room temperature water is all it needs.  You don't want to cool off the whisky--it loses flavor as it cools--but a little bit of water can make it brighter on the tongue.  I wouldn't recommend any more water than, say, half an eyedropper per 2 oz of whisky.

Stephen:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like peaty malts, but laph.... leep frog tastes just too #### strong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My recommendation here would be to generally stay away ffrom the Islay malts.  There are plenty of fairly peaty malts from Speyside or the Highlands that will do yyour taste buds better.  The Tamnavulin (Speyside) above will do you well.  Also, a cheaper  to only moderately expensive distillery that I like is Glenmorangie (Highland).

You may want to < tour the distilleries here. >

@ Bing:

I have not had the pleasure of Poit Dhubh, but the HP 25 is very fine.  I'll bring whisky if I can be invited to the  next party.
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,23:03

By the way, attention 'General Editor' of PCID William Dembski: I see that you numbnuts can't get an issue out the door. I can help remedy the situation. The Discovery Institute spends millions of dollars per year. You get me 100k, I can get a PCID issue out. I already know who to call. 100k, and Issue 5.0 will hit the stands Summer 07. I've got people lined up. $100,000 into my Wachovia checking account, I promise you by midsummer we'll have a dozen ID articles uploaded in PDF format by my birthday, June 30. Email me for details. 12 pro-ID articles, for a total of say 60,000 words, two months from now. 100k.

Ball's in your court.
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,23:20

By the way, Bill, we don't even have to do this publicly. I follow you. You like to get paid. I like to get paid. You get some ID pseudonyms, we can work this out. I can get you 5,000 word pro-ID pieces for $5k apiece, no disclosure necessary. Put whatever name you want on the piece, I can outsource this, we can both make some bank. I'll even sign a NDA. Call me Bill. Let's get P.A.I.D.
Posted by: stevestory on April 23 2007,23:25

while I'm at it, Bill, let me give you my rate. $1/word. I can give you what you want. CSI, IC, Ontogenetic Depth, I'm a Content Provider waiting to happen. I don't care whose name you put on it. I'll even give you fake references, like you guys are used to. Call me. Let's make a deal.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on April 24 2007,00:14

Screw him Steve, I say we start our own ID journal and charge a healthy subscription fee. Given the level of research involved I reckon I could do a paper every couple of weeks. I'm sure the DI will give us a grant.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,02:53

I'm up for some of that, I can write flashy sounding bullshit with the best of em! At work, they even pay me for it!
Posted by: jva on April 24 2007,03:10

Oh! I have a domain waiting for that.

How does: "International Journal of Design" sound to you?

That is, "ijos.org"?

I am absolutely serious about this. Paper submissions to editor@ijos.org will get peer-review -- not necessarily "friendly" peer-review, but peer-review nonetheless.

It's an online journal, like PLoS, in that we have open access, and until the workload gets too extreme, we also have a grant to cover the basic payroll. If this journal does well, we will need to expand our editorial coverage and start requiring per-page charges.

I promise we will hold that off as long as possible.

(also, I initially posted this at UD, but it seems they considered it some form of trolling...)
Posted by: Zarquon on April 24 2007,04:34

Call your magazine the World Wide Journal of Design - that'd be a really sciencey abbreviation.
Posted by: slpage on April 24 2007,07:54

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2007,10:17)
In case you hadn't noticed, FtK posted this blog message yesterday.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Worth the read
Walt Brown has worked for 20+ years exploring a YE interpretation of scientific data, and over the years, has offered some fascinating theories. What I like most about his work is that it is very comprehensive. He has an eye for being able to see the big picture.

He has added a section to his website on the Grand Canyon. He has made many trips to the Grand Canyon over the years to conduct field work, and recently led a group in exploring his conclusions. Interesting read.

He also provides his take on global warming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I sent her a comment, but it seems not to have made it through "moderation".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amazing...

Brown's gibberish was demolished on < KCFS > with FtK often acting as the willing go-between as for some odd reason, Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.

FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims and still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

So much for the 'open mind' of the IDcreationist...
Posted by: guthrie on April 24 2007,08:22

I really like the idea of setting up our own journal.  You could solicit contributions from well known comed.. sorry, scientists from all over the world.
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,08:22

Scott,

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,08:27

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:22)
Scott,

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


of the points raised

a) Brown's gibberish was demolished
b) FtK often acting as the willing go-between
c) Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.
d) FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims
e) FtK still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

you choose only to address c).
Most people would say that the other points were in fact more important. It's a reflection on your honesty that you choose to address the least important point.

Coward.
Posted by: Darth Robo on April 24 2007,08:37

How the heck can anyone take Brown seriously?  Some of the stuff he comes out with is hilarious.   :D
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,08:45

Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.  Just like anything I might choose to discuss here, it would be spun to your liking.  

I've had no serious discussions here, yet when I did merely mention sex ed classes, that conversation was contorted to what you wanted to think I supported.  Yet, in writing, I had already given my opinion on the matter.  It didn't match with what you relayed to readers later.  Not surprising.

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  

NO THANKS.

You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,08:50

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.  Just like anything I might choose to discuss here, it would be spun to your liking.  

I've had no serious discussions here, yet when I did merely mention sex ed classes, that conversation was contorted to what you wanted to think I supported.  Yet, in writing, I had already given my opinion on the matter.  It didn't match with what you relayed to readers later.  Not surprising.

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  

NO THANKS.

You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Brown did not get "demolished" do you have links to the rebuttals where he addresses his critics? No? I wonder why.

And pot/kettle?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the style in which you people debate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen your blog, and your boyfriends blog (UD). At least the debate here is uncensored.

EDIT:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yup, the other points are more important
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, Address them then, handwaiving does not count!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,08:55

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 24 2007,08:57

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  

NO THANKS.

You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remarkable.  As if anyone here had a chance of doing anything that would change her opinions. I just looked back at some of those KCFS threads, and it is clear that FtK's position hasn't changed a bit. You could drag those 2-yr old posts over here and nobody would know the difference.

Just for the record, FtK, what would it take to change your opinion from creationist BS to a state of accepting reality and then figuring out how to accomodate it to your religion?

Feel free to ignore this question like you have ignored Steve's...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,09:12

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 24 2007,08:57)
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  

NO THANKS.

You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remarkable.  As if anyone here had a chance of doing anything that would change her opinions. I just looked back at some of those KCFS threads, and it is clear that FtK's position hasn't changed a bit. You could drag those 2-yr old posts over here and nobody would know the difference.

Just for the record, FtK, what would it take to change your opinion from creationist BS to a state of accepting reality and then figuring out how to accomodate it to your religion?

Feel free to ignore this question like you have ignored Steve's...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I'd like to know what it is about certain authorities that means that people like FTK will listen to them and disregard others totally.
I mean, is it the power of Brown's arguments that has persuaded FTK that he is right, or is it the fact that his conclusion concurs with hers.
Is it coincidence?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets start simple.
FTK, did you initially agree with the consensus view of the age of the earth? What caused you to question it? How do you decide which authority to listen to? The science involved is obviously beyond you, so is it personality, charm, what? Or is it just that you choose your authority figures depending on if they agree with what your magic 2000 year old book happens to say?

Just wondering.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 24 2007,10:25

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2007,02:53)
I'm up for some of that, I can write flashy sounding bullshit with the best of em! At work, they even pay me for it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  Me Too!  

Sorry I have been busy at work and after work, baseball recently, but I can make time to write some science fiction for some ID journal, as long as I get money for me.

I do have a couple of questions though:

How sciencey does it have to be - good enough to fool real scientists, or just Sal Cordova?  

Is this just for the rubes like ftk, or is this for people that have a clue?

Do you think that the DI will come up with enough grant money that we can finish the research on the single-malt discussion?

Do you think the DI will come up with enough grant money to research into Finding The Real Atlantis,  and fly us all to the Greek Islands for the summer?  

(I will pass BTW on doing research into finding the Real Garden of Eden.  Maybe let Dembski, Behe and the Boyz do that one...)
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,10:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.

You want to read the Brown thread?  < Go for it >.  It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread.

I tried setting up very fair parameters in that particular debate, but to no avail.  People were evidently so intimidated by the thought of debate that I couldn't get 3 judges (you'd have to read the thing to get the idea).

Now, we'll see what jerks you people actually are.  If you start quote mining from that thread and showing disrespect and ridicule, you'll prove my point.  If you are able to control your emotions and act civilized when commenting on what you find, you'll prove me wrong.
Posted by: argystokes on April 24 2007,10:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I don't trust any of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Won't you keep an open mind?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,10:38

Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,10:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I don't trust any of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Won't you keep an open mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


think of the children!

EDIT: FTK, the dawkins forum has a special debate mode. Would you consider that venue instead? A neutral place.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,10:38

Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,10:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I don't trust any of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Won't you keep an open mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, really, FTK! You're the one who taught me that every side of an argument is equally valid, and that this is proof of not being 'dogmatic'!

Gosh, I wish you'd be consistent!
Posted by: k.e on April 24 2007,10:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bear in mind that I never plan on being "serious" here.   I just get a kick out of watching you people act like complete goofballs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IT'S CALLED INTELLIGENT GOOFBALLING DESIGN , HOMO!
MAKE SURE YOU TIP BEFORE YOU LEAVE.

P.S. WRITE ID ARTICLES FOR MONEY?
HECK I'D DO IT FOR FREE.
THOSE TOE RAGS OVER IN THE ID SANDPIT COULDN'T WRITE IF THEY TRIED.
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS SAY DARWIN WAS A CRACK SMOKING WILLEY WHACKER AND BEHE/DEMBSKI ARE THE SECOND COMING. DONE, NOW BUY ME A DRINK.

P.P.S. DANGEROUS AND WEIRD EH? STEVESTORY (IF THATS YOUR REAL NAME) IF YOU THINK LENNY IS RADICAL, HOW'S THIS.......THE PENIS, MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,11:23

Whiskey eh?

Real men do indeed drink Jack Daniels, however, THIS real man had a "minor episode" with two bottles of the stuff on his 18th birthday and thus has been unable to entertain Mr Daniels for the last 14 years!

Laphroaig is pleasant (< Lagavulin > is less peaty IMO than Laphroaig). However I do have to day that I am more of a brandy man than a whiskey man. Now a good calvados or armagnac would see me right, of course in the company of a Cohiba Robustos. In fact one of life's singular pleasures is to take a small amount of foie gras* on a delicately toasted brioche and consume it with a Sauternes and follow this exquisite amuse bouche with a good vintage calvados (pear and apple, not overly oaked, very old, >40 years) and a Cohiba Robustos.**

Shit, I need to go to the shops immediately!

Louis

P.S. Anyone who pouts ANYTHING in a malt whiskey other than more malt whiskey needs to be horsewhipped from one end of the Mall to the other. Elliot, I'm looking at you! ;-)

*Foie gras, the world's cruellest food. I am nigh on certain that it's flavour is improved by the agony of the geese. Yes I realise that even consuming it makes me a vile and disgusting human being. I have my flaws and a penchant for foie gras is most certainly one of them. It is a hypocrisy I currently allow myself, although for how much longer I cannot say. Still, at least I've given up the baby seal cooked in its own fear.

**Followed of course by beating the house boy with a stout oak stick and rogering the parlour maid into insensibility.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 24 2007,13:04

Louis.
Piss of you bastard! Last time we met you ruined my mind with Tequila. Now that is bad stuff.

FTK.
You have been found wanting. If you want a serious discussion, there are loads of people here capable of answering questions. It is obvious to all of us that is not what you desire most, you want to be banned but have found yourself on a site that is not scared of any argument you can produce.

Now you are scared aintcha? Ask a question and some scarey bugger will answer you rather than ban you. That must be a surprise because on an ID blog this is unheard of isn't it?

It is ok ftk. Nobody expects a serious answer from an ID suporter. I bet that it anoys you that you do not get banned though! Your questions are not as very threatening as you hoped are they?

Sory for sounding so serious. You are just lighthearted entertainment (the whisky questions are more important to me).

EDIT: Jack Daniels is an OK drink and should be drunk neat. However it should not be included in a discusion about single malts....Heretics! "BURN THOSE WITCHES/WARLOKS!"
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 24 2007,13:21

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 24 2007,13:04)
EDIT: Jack Daniels is an OK drink and should be drunk neat. However it should not be included in a discusion about single malts....Heretics! "BURN THOSE WITCHES/WARLOKS!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh.  If you are going to talk about American whiskey, surely you can do better than Old Number 7. My personal suggestion is Labrot & Graham Woodford Reserve bourbon.

By the way, who let FtK wander off the ranch? She found her way over to the ancient forest thread and now I am going to have to cut her from the herd over there and bring her back.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,13:28

Yeah, sorry about that, I didn't mean for that thread to bleed off all the traffic from the main "Let's Make Fun of Helen Lovejoy FTK" thread.   ???

(Tho this now seems to have devolved into a "Let's All Discuss Liquor" thread...)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 24 2007,13:38

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.

You want to read the Brown thread?  < Go for it >.  It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread.

I tried setting up very fair parameters in that particular debate, but to no avail.  People were evidently so intimidated by the thought of debate that I couldn't get 3 judges (you'd have to read the thing to get the idea).

Now, we'll see what jerks you people actually are.  If you start quote mining from that thread and showing disrespect and ridicule, you'll prove my point.  If you are able to control your emotions and act civilized when commenting on what you find, you'll prove me wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unlike most people here, I do actually understand your dilema. I was also once an ID supporter. Just look at the evidence ftk. The ID perspective is not tenable if it refutes evolution and the age of the Earth/Sun/Galaxy/Universe. A 10K year old universe is laughable.
Posted by: improvius on April 24 2007,13:49

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,11:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an excellent example of the creationist "mental blockade" that prevents contradictory data from entering the conscious thought process.  Sources of contradictory data are classified as "untrustworthy", therefore the data itself can be safely ignored.
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,14:08

Quote (improvius @ April 24 2007,13:49)
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,11:25)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an excellent example of the creationist "mental blockade" that prevents contradictory data from entering the conscious thought process.  Sources of contradictory data are classified as "untrustworthy", therefore the data itself can be safely ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".  I've provided a link to prove it, and that is only one freaking thread of hundreds I've been involved in over the past 3 years or so.

I merely won't go through it here again with you people.  There is no point in it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,14:11

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,14:08)
Quote (improvius @ April 24 2007,13:49)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,11:25)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an excellent example of the creationist "mental blockade" that prevents contradictory data from entering the conscious thought process.  Sources of contradictory data are classified as "untrustworthy", therefore the data itself can be safely ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you should have no trouble telling us what peer reviewed articles on the subject you've read, right?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 24 2007,14:13

hOLEY sMokes! FTK did a DS!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on April 24 2007,14:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2007,14:13)
hOLEY sMokes! FTK did a DS!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ancient Caveman Saying:  You play with the Tard, you're gonna get splattered.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 24 2007,14:50

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,11:23)
P.S. Anyone who pouts ANYTHING in a malt whiskey other than more malt whiskey needs to be horsewhipped from one end of the Mall to the other. Elliot, I'm looking at you! ;-)

*Foie gras, the world's cruellest food. I am nigh on certain that it's flavour is improved by the agony of the geese. Yes I realise that even consuming it makes me a vile and disgusting human being. I have my flaws and a penchant for foie gras is most certainly one of them. It is a hypocrisy I currently allow myself, although for how much longer I cannot say. Still, at least I've given up the baby seal cooked in its own fear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Foie gras - OUTLAWED IN CHICAGO!

We need to Fight For Foie Gras Freedon Now!

I don't know what it's like for the rest of you, but the geese around Chicago know that foie gras is now illegal, and they are getting awfully #### uppity.  Strutting around, honking, pooping like.... well, like #### geese!  Intollerable.

< http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml >

For those of you Outside this Goose Heaven Enclave, fight back now  Please!  Order some Foi Gras with your Big Mac Now.. before it's too late!
Posted by: J-Dog on April 24 2007,14:59

So, do we need a new thread?  

Dining and Drinking with Darwin and Dawkins?

Or considering the responses to the single-malt stories,
Dining and Drinking with Darwin, Dawkins and Drunks?

We could share our favorite recipes for

Roast Creo ala YEC

Demski Tartar (must have cast-iron stomach to try this!)

Cordova Cod Creole

Fried ftk - Kansas City Style

Please share YOUR favorites!
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,15:24

Steve,

What's wrong with tequila? A perfectly good rocket fuel in my estimation. When are we doing Maidenhead?*

Louis

*Said with some trepidation, if anyone brings this up I'll deny it, but my post beverage hangovers are getting quite spectacularly bad so I am thinking of cutting down a bit.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,15:44

Quote (Ftk]No @ I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.[/quote)


And

[QUOTE=Ftk]Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".  I've provided a link to prove it, and that is only one freaking thread of hundreds I've been involved in over the past 3 years or so.

I merely won't go through it here again with you people.  There is no point in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow FTK, that's a stunning piece of unwarranted abuse!
So now I'm disresepctful and dense? What have I ever done to you FTK?

Hold your hat, I'm going to be blunt. I've been discussing things with creationists and their recent ID incarnations for about 14 to 15 years now, frankly if I'm honest I suffer regular bouts of being bored witless by you reality denying individuals and getting quite annoyed with you, BUT (and this is kind of a key BUT here so pay deep attention) I'm an optimist. I live in hope that one of you will one day provide a substantial, honest, interesting argument and stop finding excuses to run away from difficult questions. I also hope that one day the "scientific creationism" (read unreconstructed bullshit designed to gull the scientifically illiterate) of Ham, Brown, Hovind, Gish, Morris etc.

Why am I an optimist FTK? I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm in love. That's the whole deal, total, mind buggering, jaw dropping, aching love. What or who with? The universe. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss WHAT the universe is, what is real, true and what is not. It doesn't bother me. If your god is real and the earth is 6000 years old and an "Intelligent Designer" did it all then I am as happy as a sandboy on large quantities of opiates and happy pills. What I DO care about, and care very very deeply indeed, is HOW we know what the universe, what reality is. I want to get the best, most accurate, most reliable, most consistent, most reproducible, most predictive picture of what the universe is and what reality is that I can possibly get. Guess what FTK, IDC, YEC, OEC etc are not good pictures. They are failed ideas, ideas that have long since be consigned to the scrapheap. They are old, bad, poorly developed ideas. Not because I say so, not because I don't like their conclusions, but because they are not in any sense supported by the evidence and they are often not even coherent. Sorry, I know you don't like this and I know you don't want to admit to it, but it's the case. Wake up, smell the coffee and join the rest of the thinking world outside of your tiny little ID shell.

Now are you going to grow a pair (metaphorically speaking of course) of cojones and actually support your claim that science is being fitted to conform to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or are you going to wave your hands, run away, make up some feeble excuse, insult people like you have done so far?

For shame FTK.

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,16:11

Quote (J-Dog @ April 24 2007,15:59)
Cordova Cod Creole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cordova Cod Creole is an easy to prepare recipe. First, you insist that the oven's at a mere 4.5 degrees, when anyone can plainly see it's at 450 degrees. Then you just serve everyone some elaborately carved and dressed slaughterhouse offal, and tell them it's Cod Creole. Despite everyone telling you you're wrong, never stop claiming it's a really tasty dish and very satisfying. Also, spend lots of time badmouthing succesful chefs and accusing them of conspiracies.
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,16:18

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,16:24)
Steve,

What's wrong with tequila? A perfectly good rocket fuel in my estimation. When are we doing Maidenhead?*

Louis

*Said with some trepidation, if anyone brings this up I'll deny it, but my post beverage hangovers are getting quite spectacularly bad so I am thinking of cutting down a bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was a very bad party 11 years ago when I was 19. Very bad. If I even smell the stuff now I get queasy. I can drink anything else, but not that.

Yeah, hangovers get worse as you get older. If I have so much as two bottles of wine now I get one. I need an upgrade to an industrial strength liver.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I need an upgrade to an industrial strength liver.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I broke my industrial strength liver.

Luckily I have the liver of an unsullied ten year old boy on ice ready for my next beer up. It's a resource I've been using for a few years now. Mind you it is expense in ten year old boys, still, what's perfection without a little suffering.

Louis

P.S. I introduced Mr Elliot to the joys of a Tequila Suicide. Snort the salt, shoot the tequila, squeeze the lemon into your eye. Of course "real men" snort the tequila too, but that gets really difficult after a while. Oh and if a rugby player offers to let you play a game called "Bile Beer", refuse very politely and leave the bar rapidly. Just FYI.

P.P.S. J-Dog: What do we want? Deliciously rich and subtle pate made from the mushy livers of geese who've been force fed grain in the dark and then strangled. When do we want it? NOW!
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 24 2007,16:40

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,16:26)
P.S. I introduced Mr Elliot to the joys of a Tequila Suicide. Snort the salt, shoot the tequila, squeeze the lemon into your eye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This reminds me of when I used to travel to Mexico on business. There was a little thing known as a bandera:  a shot glass of tequila (Don Julio preferrably), a shot glass of sangrita, and a shot glass of lime juice.  I did a few, but generally stuck with < michelada > con < Indio. >

Unfortunately, I don't believe they import Indio into the States.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,16:45

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,16:11)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 24 2007,15:59)
Cordova Cod Creole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cordova Cod Creole is an easy to prepare recipe. First, you insist that the oven's at a mere 4.5 degrees, when anyone can plainly see it's at 450 degrees. Then you just serve everyone some elaborately carved and dressed slaughterhouse offal, and tell them it's Cod Creole. Despite everyone telling you you're wrong, never stop claiming it's a really tasty dish and very satisfying. Also, spend lots of time badmouthing successful chefs and accusing them of conspiracies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People? Post of the Week?
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,16:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was a little thing known as a bandera:  a shot glass of tequila (Don Julio preferrably), a shot glass of sangrita, and a shot glass of lime juice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ouch!

Barman! New lungs please!

Louis

P.S. Added in edit:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People? Post of the Week?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Fucking apple polisher! ;-)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,17:06

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,16:46)
P.S. Added in edit:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People? Post of the Week?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Fucking apple polisher! ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, mister smart guy, you think you're so funny, make with the laugh-laugh!  :angry:  :angry:







We're waiting!!!
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,17:12

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 24 2007,17:45)
Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,16:11)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 24 2007,15:59)
Cordova Cod Creole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cordova Cod Creole is an easy to prepare recipe. First, you insist that the oven's at a mere 4.5 degrees, when anyone can plainly see it's at 450 degrees. Then you just serve everyone some elaborately carved and dressed slaughterhouse offal, and tell them it's Cod Creole. Despite everyone telling you you're wrong, never stop claiming it's a really tasty dish and very satisfying. Also, spend lots of time badmouthing successful chefs and accusing them of conspiracies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People? Post of the Week?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Employees of After the Bar Closes Inc. and their relatives are not eligible to win the prizes.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,17:30

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,00:06)
Okay, mister smart guy, you think you're so funny, make with the laugh-laugh!  :angry:  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You want funny eh? Ok then.

How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the bulb and the other to hold my penis....I mean ladder.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,17:35

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no need to change any opinions.  After all, opinions like yours simply don't matter.  Creationism is illegal to teach.  Period.  Game over.

Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,17:38

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------









---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, we'll see what jerks you people actually are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anything about that juxatposition strike you as being, uh, a little bit odd, FTK . . . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,17:42

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,15:24)
if anyone brings this up I'll deny it, but my post beverage hangovers are getting quite spectacularly bad so I am thinking of cutting down a bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, I quit every Monday.


:)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,17:46

Ya know, FTK, for someone who apparently just wants to tell us that she, uh, doesn't want to talk to any of us, you sure do, um, post an awful lot here . . . . .


Me, I think you're just an attention whore.  (shrug)
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,17:49

Lenny,

I have wondered how FTK thinks that we are jerks, dumb, untrustworthy and a whole slew of good stuff at the same time as thinking it is US who are the disrespectful ones.

I guess it must go hand in hand with thinking the world is both 10000 and 4600000000 years old at the same time.....ooops sorry "being open minded" about the age of the earth.

Louis
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 24 2007,17:50

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,15:44)

Hold your hat, I'm going to be blunt. I've been discussing things with creationists and their recent ID incarnations for about 14 to 15 years now, frankly if I'm honest I suffer regular bouts of being bored witless by you reality denying individuals and getting quite annoyed with you, BUT (and this is kind of a key BUT here so pay deep attention) I'm an optimist. I live in hope that one of you will one day provide a substantial, honest, interesting argument and stop finding excuses to run away from difficult questions. I also hope that one day the "scientific creationism" (read unreconstructed bullshit designed to gull the scientifically illiterate) of Ham, Brown, Hovind, Gish, Morris etc.

Why am I an optimist FTK? I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm in love. That's the whole deal, total, mind buggering, jaw dropping, aching love. What or who with? The universe. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss WHAT the universe is, what is real, true and what is not. It doesn't bother me. If your god is real and the earth is 6000 years old and an "Intelligent Designer" did it all then I am as happy as a sandboy on large quantities of opiates and happy pills. What I DO care about, and care very very deeply indeed, is HOW we know what the universe, what reality is. I want to get the best, most accurate, most reliable, most consistent, most reproducible, most predictive picture of what the universe is and what reality is that I can possibly get. Guess what FTK, IDC, YEC, OEC etc are not good pictures. They are failed ideas, ideas that have long since be consigned to the scrapheap. They are old, bad, poorly developed ideas. Not because I say so, not because I don't like their conclusions, but because they are not in any sense supported by the evidence and they are often not even coherent. Sorry, I know you don't like this and I know you don't want to admit to it, but it's the case. Wake up, smell the coffee and join the rest of the thinking world outside of your tiny little ID shell.

Now are you going to grow a pair (metaphorically speaking of course) of cojones and actually support your claim that science is being fitted to conform to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or are you going to wave your hands, run away, make up some feeble excuse, insult people like you have done so far?

For shame FTK.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amen, brother Louis!  The Ftk's of this world will never understand us.  If the evidence was in favor of the earth being 6,000 years old we would not care!  We have no emotional need to have the answer 6,000 or 13,500,000,000 or infinity years old for the age of the
universe.

For example, an ID argument goes like this:  The Bible said the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang theory shows the universe had a beginning, therefore the Bible was right about that long before physics was.  What great evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired!  Now if scientists were merely interested in believing something just to avoid facing the "implications" of this argument they could say: look at this evidence that points to an infinite universe, and quote Fred Hoyle's outdated falsified ideas.  But we don't.  

If YECs or IDers have what it takes to convince scientists - they will believe you!  It is abundantly clear that the  founders of ID, YEC, etc. have a pre-determined answer that they MUST have be true, or else their "worldview" is wrong, and that would be EMOTIONALLY devastating.  It is also abundantly clear that YECs and IDers don't have scientific evidence - YEC and ID is getting NO traction, even among the roughly 50% of scientists who are Christian.
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,17:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me, I think you're just an attention whore.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...I get that accusation alot.  

Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about.

I don't look for the attention, it seems to come to me.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,17:53

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 25 2007,00:45)
Hey Louis, just wanted to say thanks for your sticking up for EAC Vulgarians like me over at Dawkins' place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No worries. I reckon if you tripped over to Davey's house and hit him upside the head with a 2 by 4 a few times you'd still be on safer ethical ground than he is!

Louis
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2007,17:58

FTK,

Of ALL the posts you could have responded to you pick that one. Sure, you're all about the science right?

I'm beginning to become disappointed with you, I think you might have misled innocent little me. I thought you were all about the science, and yet I've seen precisely diddly squat from you except nastiness, hand waving, obfuscation, equivocation and running away.

Wow FTK, way to keep that intellectual candle burning!

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 24 2007,18:03

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,17:49)
I guess it must go hand in hand with thinking the world is both 10000 and 4600000000 years old at the same time.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To paraphrase Jack Benny, the world is 10,000 years old with 4,599,990,000 years experience.
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,18:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK, did you initially agree with the consensus view of the age of the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, completely.  It's all I was taught in high school and college, and the churches I attended growing up never mentioned anything about "flood geology", or a "young earth".  Most churches that I'm familiar with wouldn't touch that subject with a 10 foot pole, and the one I attend now doesn't hold a particular viewpoint on it either.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What caused you to question it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My kids were young and into the whole dinosaur deal.  I was surfing the net looking up dino info. for them, and ran across some young earth stuff, and at about the same time I was attending a bible study (that had nothing to do with this subject) and some guy brought in a film on flood geology.  I'd never heard of anything like it, and the leaders of the class had no comment about it, but they let the guy show part of the film.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you decide which authority to listen to? The science involved is obviously beyond you, so is it personality, charm, what? Or is it just that you choose your authority figures depending on if they agree with what your magic 2000 year old book happens to say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I "listen" to all "authorities", and I have certainly not made any final decisions on these issues.  I also DO NOT in any way believe that the earth MUST be young to validate scripture.  I do think there is conflict with common ancestry and scripture, but perhaps one day a TE will put something together to rectify that problem.  

But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.

And, yeah, I think "charm" figures in there somewhere.  I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight.  It doesn't matter how much I listen or what I try to discuss, they treat me like crap.  Every once in a while, I'll come across someone who will be kind for a bit, but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters.

I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,18:43

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,17:50)
Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about.

I don't look for the attention, it seems to come to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another thought --- answer questions, or shut the fuck up and go away.

(shrug)
Posted by: argystokes on April 24 2007,18:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,19:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, yeah, I think "charm" figures in there somewhere.  I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight.  It doesn't matter how much I listen or what I try to discuss,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When did you 'try to discuss' something? 99% of your messages here are nothing but complaining about Darwinists and repeating that you'll never answer our questions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
they treat me like crap.  Every once in a while, I'll come across someone who will be kind for a bit, but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try honesty and uh, answering questions for a change. Generally,  respect is, like, earned.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Translated: "Darwinists are a bunch of big meanies, therefore common descent is a crock and the earth is 6,000 years old".

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't worry, once FTK lists for us all the peer reviewed articles she says she's read, we'll know what her basis is for this belief. Right?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 24 2007,19:19

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 24 2007,19:01)
 
Don't worry, once FTK lists for us all the peer reviewed articles she says she's read, we'll know what her basis is for this belief. Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If by "peer reviewed" you mean by King James, or like how Behe's Black Box got reviewed, I think you're right...
Posted by: Ftk on April 24 2007,19:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try honesty and uh, answering questions for a change. Generally,  respect is, like, earned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hon, anything that does not coinsider with your worldview would be considered "dishonest".  I've never said anything that is dishonest, but I've been told repeatedly from members of this forum that I'm dishonest.  What's the point in fighting that crap?

I think respect shouldn't have to be "earned".  If everyone treated each other with respect from the get go, the world would be a much better place.  It's quite possible to disagree with someone without showing utter disrespect for them.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,19:41

Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, you have met DaveScot, right?  You know, the one who posts at your blog?  DaveScot?  Champion of forthrightness, bolding, banning, and impregnating?  DaveScot?
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,19:45

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,19:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK, did you initially agree with the consensus view of the age of the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, completely.  It's all I was taught in high school and college,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You went to college?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,19:53

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,19:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try honesty and uh, answering questions for a change. Generally,  respect is, like, earned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hon, anything that does not coinsider with your worldview would be considered "dishonest".  I've never said anything that is dishonest, but I've been told repeatedly from members of this forum that I'm dishonest.  What's the point in fighting that crap?

I think respect shouldn't have to be "earned".  If everyone treated each other with respect from the get go, the world would be a much better place.  It's quite possible to disagree with someone without showing utter disrespect for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Hon", I think you have a screwy concept of respect.

If I were to deal with you as someone at my job, I would 'treat you with respect'. If you were my neighbor and you needed a favor, I'd treat you with respect. If you delivered my pizzas or fixed my computer, I'd treat you with respect. If you sat across from me on a train, or next to me in my dentist's waiting room, I'd treat you with respect.

But you're not doing any of those things here. Here all you're doing here is whining about Darwinists, atheists, and liberals, parroting a lot of tedious creationist lies, trying to bullshit us, and refusing to answer anyone's questions.

So, respect?  Errrrrrrnnnnnnnnnt.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,19:54

Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How about we geerally asked you for what basis you have for your views and then you answered by saying that yu would never tell us what basis you have for your views?  Then we asked why we should take your word for it if you aren't going to provide any supporting details.  Then you got mad at us because we asked?  This seems to me how it went, generally.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm.  We ask some questions.  You don't answer them, but duck and dodge and claim that we have never wanted to discuss science.  Then you continually tell us you're all about the science and never once, not once, talk about science even when sked to countless times.  You claim to be for the kids, but you show:

1.  No scholarship
2.  No desire to discuss issues with anyone.  Not here, not at your blog, not in public, not with the establishment, not with scientists, not with public officials, not with kids, not with anyone.  But you expect to be taken seriously?  For that, I have one question that you HAVE TO ANSWER.

WHO IN THIS WORLD WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DISCUSS SCIENCE WITH?  ANYONE?  IF NOT, WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?

You have never shown anyone the respect of actually engaging with them in a discussion.  To me, that is the ultimate sort of respect.  I respect you enough to engage with you in meaningful dialogue, to teach, to learn, to share.  As far as this goes, you show zero, and I mean zero respect for any other breathing being.

Respect belongs to those who know what to do with it.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,20:04

Ftk (from the fossil forrest thread):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was my conception that you were a person who evaded questions, never talked about facts, andgenerally behaved the same way that all creationists behave.

You're doing a lovely job of changing my mind.
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 24 2007,20:05

My apologies, but can we stop talking to / about / around ftk and get back to the scotch?  The doublewood is very fine and if you're paying $50, you're not shopping around.

On a related subject, I must say that Bombay Saphire gin is quite good, but only if it is not the primary ingredient.  Add half a shot to 1.5 shots of vodka (anything above de-greaser will work), at least act like you're adding vermouth* and you have a fantastic martini.  Do not shake, dammit; stir.

*Winston Churchill liked his dry  - why argue with a man like that?
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 24 2007,20:10

And FTK, let me add - I just don't care.

This hurts, but I agree with the Viking Socialist (Lenny) here:
1. Talk science
2. Quit whining
3. Go home

Pick one.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,20:13

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,20:05)
My apologies, but can we stop talking to / about / around ftk and get back to the scotch?  The doublewood is very fine and if you're paying $50, you're not shopping around.

On a related subject, I must say that Bombay Saphire gin is quite good, but only if it is not the primary ingredient.  Add have a shot to 1.5 shots of vodka (anything above de-greaser will work), at least act like you're adding vermouth* and you have a fantastic martini.  Do not shake, dammit; stir.

*Winston Churchill liked his dry  - why argue with a man like that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so sorry; I don't know what got into me.

I was going to comment on the double-wood Balvenie earlier.  It is a nice whisky (the proper spelling for Gaelic whisky, we Americans added the "e") and you can certainly obtain a fifth for around 36-40 USD.

I can't do the gin myself except as a mixer.  I appreciate your taste in gin, however.  Take this from a non-gin drinker, but the best gin I've tried is Citadel (from Pierre Ferand).  A little pricey for me (non-gin drinker here), but I thought it was fairly smooth.

Add some #### vermouth to the martini, though.  (Even if you do a vodka martini bastardization like I do.)  You don't have to go original recipe and add an entire half a jigger, but I like about 1/4 ounce.  And definitely stirred; we agree there.
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,20:24

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,21:05)
at least act like you're adding vermouth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That reminds me of Brad Pitt giving stoned directions in True Romance.

"Ok, Well, you go down Santa Clara for a while, then make like you're gonna turn left, and then keep driving for a while...."
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 24 2007,20:26

I usually do add some vermouth - like you, not that much though.  I like the color that rosso vermouth adds.

I also like to add a little of the olive brine too, but I object to those that call this a "dirty" martini.  It is not dirty if you're doing it right.

I have noted that I like more intensely flavored things as I age.  More tannic wines; gin.  I guess I killed enough taste buds to appreciate a little more intensity.

blipey, are you the guy living near KC?
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,20:27

Quote (blipey @ April 24 2007,21:13)
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,20:05)
My apologies, but can we stop talking to / about / around ftk and get back to the scotch?  The doublewood is very fine and if you're paying $50, you're not shopping around.

On a related subject, I must say that Bombay Saphire gin is quite good, but only if it is not the primary ingredient.  Add have a shot to 1.5 shots of vodka (anything above de-greaser will work), at least act like you're adding vermouth* and you have a fantastic martini.  Do not shake, dammit; stir.

*Winston Churchill liked his dry  - why argue with a man like that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so sorry; I don't know what got into me.

I was going to comment on the double-wood Balvenie earlier.  It is a nice whisky (the proper spelling for Gaelic whisky, we Americans added the "e") and you can certainly obtain a fifth for around 36-40 USD.

I can't do the gin myself except as a mixer.  I appreciate your taste in gin, however.  Take this from a non-gin drinker, but the best gin I've tried is Citadel (from Pierre Ferand).  A little pricey for me (non-gin drinker here), but I thought it was fairly smooth.

Add some #### vermouth to the martini, though.  (Even if you do a vodka martini bastardization like I do.)  You don't have to go original recipe and add an entire half a jigger, but I like about 1/4 ounce.  And definitely stirred; we agree there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


can you tell the difference between shaken and stirred? What's the difference?
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,20:32

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,21:05)
The doublewood is very fine and if you're paying $50, you're not shopping around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think going to a different ABC store in North Carolina will matter much...
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,20:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
can you tell the difference between shaken and stirred? What's the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.  a shaken martini is a little watered down--the process melts more ice into the cocktail (though this is a term that only technically applies to a martini with vermouth in it, cocktails needing more than one ingredient).  This causes the flavor to be a little flat on the tongue.

A stirred martini chills while melting about 1/4 the amount of ice into the cocktail.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have noted that I like more intensely flavored things as I age.  More tannic wines; gin.  I guess I killed enough taste buds to appreciate a little more intensity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree totally, I like the single malt whisky, big reds, spicy carmeneres, an armagnac once in a while.  Gin is just not something my tongue likes, a little too herbal for me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey, are you the guy living near KC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I live in downtown Kansas City, MO (though I am currently performing in a natioanlly touring theatre production so god knows what KC's like at the moment).

Of course, your statement could also apply to: AFDave or Ftk--maybe I jumped the gun  :O
Posted by: k.e on April 24 2007,20:37

OK, LETS TALK ABOUT SPIRITS. HERE AT UD WE DON'T DISCOUNT THE EXISTENCE OF A GRAND DISTILLER IN THE SKY WHO BREWED UP LIFE IN A COPPER KETTLE ONE DAY WHEN HE GOT SOBER, BUT THE FIRST ONE TO COINTREAU IS A HOMO!
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on April 24 2007,20:40

I tried both shaken and stirred in one sitting.  The shaking seemed to bring out a little too much aroma from my gin.  And since I use the Saphire, which has a lot of nose to it, it seemed to peak early.

The stirring seemed to let the gin come out more later as the the drink warmed some.

Sometimes I think these details are more urban legend than reality.  But, I do think that wine temperature, particularly for picky wines like pino noir, really makes a difference.  But could I do a double blind test with the shaken  / stirred and really tell?  I'll let you know next week...
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,20:56

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,21:40)
I tried both shaken and stirred in one sitting.  The shaking seemed to bring out a little too much aroma from my gin.  And since I use the Saphire, which has a lot of nose to it, it seemed to peak early.

The stirring seemed to let the gin come out more later as the the drink warmed some.

Sometimes I think these details are more urban legend than reality.  But, I do think that wine temperature, particularly for picky wines like pino noir, really makes a difference.  But could I do a double blind test with the shaken  / stirred and really tell?  I'll let you know next week...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Differences aren't always imaginary. I'm a coffeeholic, and can tell the difference between a 16-second shot of espresso and a 22-second shot and a 28-second shot. You can tell me it's a nice Sumatra, but if it's actually a lightly-roasted Kenya AA, one sip and it's going down the sink.

(And don't tell me some people prefer a nice lightly-roasted Kenya, Costa Rica, or Guatemala. There's no such thing, and those people are perverts.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24 2007,21:01

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,20:10)
This hurts, but I agree with the Viking Socialist (Lenny) here:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come onnnnnn, it didn't hurt THAT bad, did it?

;)
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,21:05

If there is a HeII and I go there, the drip coffee is all Guatemala which has been sitting on the burner for 4 hours, and the espresso is decaf and the shots are running ~45 seconds.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,21:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Differences aren't always imaginary. I'm a coffeeholic, and can tell the difference between a 16-second shot of espresso and a 22-second shot and a 28-second shot. You can tell me it's a nice Sumatra, but if it's actually a lightly-roasted Kenya AA, one sip and it's going down the sink.

(And don't tell me some people prefer a nice lightly-roasted Kenya, Costa Rica, or Guatemala. There's no such thing, and those people are perverts.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The shaking seemed to bring out a little too much aroma from my gin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not illusory; it is called "bruising".  Some people like this, but they are poof-tas.  Vigorous shaking can change the flavor of an aromatic or herbal liquor like gin.
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,22:13

Quote (blipey @ April 24 2007,22:56)
Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kona is pretty badass. Almost as good as Jamaican Blue Mountain was, a few years ago, when that meant something. After a while, you develop a palate. A 16 second shot, at its best, would be somewhat watery. Not detectable in a latte, for instance, but totally distinct straight up. By the way, the Kona you had was a blend, probably between 10%-40% Kona. Can you imagine 100%? It would be a coffeegasm.
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,22:17

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,23:13)
Quote (blipey @ April 24 2007,22:56)
Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kona is pretty badass. Almost as good as Jamaican Blue Mountain was, a few years ago, when that meant something. After a while, you develop a palate. A 16 second shot, at its best, would be somewhat watery. Not detectable in a latte, for instance, but totally distinct straight up. By the way, the Kona you had was a blend, probably between 10%-40% Kona. Can you imagine 100%? It would be a coffeegasm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not a coffeeholic until you taste some shots and find yourself thinking, "####, they need to backflush the Cimbali."
Posted by: improvius on April 24 2007,22:19

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,18:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me, I think you're just an attention whore.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...I get that accusation alot.  

Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, I thought this thread was meant to highlight everything you weren't blogging about.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,22:27

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,22:13)
Quote (blipey @ April 24 2007,22:56)
Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kona is pretty badass. Almost as good as Jamaican Blue Mountain was, a few years ago, when that meant something. After a while, you develop a palate. A 16 second shot, at its best, would be somewhat watery. Not detectable in a latte, for instance, but totally distinct straight up. By the way, the Kona you had was a blend, probably between 10%-40% Kona. Can you imagine 100%? It would be a coffeegasm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They had some Kona they were selling for upwards of 50 USD per pound.  I passed--too many other habits to support and all.  But I should give it a try, I imagine?
Posted by: stevestory on April 24 2007,22:29

If it's a high percentage of Kona in the blend, go for a half pound at least. It's the best in the world at the moment. And if somebody knows what happened to JBM, let me know. I'm curious as to why it declined in quality these last few years.
Posted by: blipey on April 24 2007,22:40

Right, I'll have to go back.  I bought the 35 USD / lb stuff.  It's 30% (I looked now that I know I should have--the things you learn at AtBC).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 24 2007,22:58

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,22:29)
If it's a high percentage of Kona in the blend, go for a half pound at least. It's the best in the world at the moment. And if somebody knows what happened to JBM, let me know. I'm curious as to why it declined in quality these last few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought JBM is vastly overrated and not at all worth the price.

(ducks under a volley of bottles and rotten tomatoes)
Posted by: qetzal on April 24 2007,23:03

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,20:56)
You can tell me it's a nice Sumatra, but if it's actually a lightly-roasted Kenya AA, one sip and it's going down the sink.

(And don't tell me some people prefer a nice lightly-roasted Kenya, Costa Rica, or Guatemala. There's no such thing, and those people are perverts.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Finally! Truth is revealed at AtBC.

You, sir, are my new diety.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 24 2007,23:14

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,20:56)
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,21:40)
I tried both shaken and stirred in one sitting.  The shaking seemed to bring out a little too much aroma from my gin.  And since I use the Saphire, which has a lot of nose to it, it seemed to peak early.

The stirring seemed to let the gin come out more later as the the drink warmed some.

Sometimes I think these details are more urban legend than reality.  But, I do think that wine temperature, particularly for picky wines like pino noir, really makes a difference.  But could I do a double blind test with the shaken  / stirred and really tell?  I'll let you know next week...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Differences aren't always imaginary. I'm a coffeeholic, and can tell the difference between a 16-second shot of espresso and a 22-second shot and a 28-second shot. You can tell me it's a nice Sumatra, but if it's actually a lightly-roasted Kenya AA, one sip and it's going down the sink.

(And don't tell me some people prefer a nice lightly-roasted Kenya, Costa Rica, or Guatemala. There's no such thing, and those people are perverts.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A shaken martini bruises, with threads of slighly darker discolouration.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24 2007,23:34

Back in 1999, Costco on Maui was selling 100% Kona coffee for about $17/lb. We bought a bunch and distributed it to friends and family.

Since I gave up caffeine, I haven't had any more arrhythmia episodes. Is there any such thing as a good decaf coffee?

Oh, about that "respect" thing... does one get to claim that one is respectful when asserting, "It sucks!", about things one hasn't bothered to read yet?
Posted by: snoeman on April 24 2007,23:52

Sapphire is the only gin that should be used in martinis and should only be stirred.

It's likely apocryphal, but Churchill's reported to have stated that his recipe for martinis was to "pour the juniper distillate liberally whilst glancing at the vermouth bottle briefly."

Even if he didn't actually say it, he should have. :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 25 2007,03:05

From FTK's blog
< >

Funny how "science says so" only sometimes, and other times it's not to be trusted. FTK, what happened to keeping an open mind and not being dogmatic?

Why do you trust these "scientists" that say things you think are true, and not other "scientists" that happen to say things that you disagree with? Is that basically it? Anything that supports your world view is "science said so" and anything else is "evil darwinists"? No further thinking required.

FtK, did you even read the article?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,05:16

1) Gin and assorted booze chat.

I agree with Uncle Winnie. Except I prefer a slightly more energetic method. I pour my chilled Bombay Sapphire into my chilled Martini glass whilst sprinting past a bottle of Noilly Prat. If I am feeling very decadent I might add a twist of lemon, on high days and holidays I substitute for a silverskin onion, I muddle the cocktail at most. I am not a fan of bruised gin (there are sound chemical reasons behind bruising. It's all to do with bubbles of trapped gas, the size of those bubbles, the temperature of the gas in those bubbles and the composition of the gas in those bubbles. Obviously).

2) FTK. I am getting a little tired of YOUR rudeness and disrespect. I have been nothing but polite to you, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in on what basis you make the claims you make. We might have a discussion about those bases and claims AFTER you tell me what they are, but until you do, no rational discussion is possible.

You made a claim that science has been, or is being, twisted to fit Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". That's a positive claim for which you as the positive claimant bear the responsibility of demonstrating. Otherwise you have to admit you were wrong and that your claim was in error and retract it. So FTK, please provide the evidence that supports your claim or retract it.

Louis
Posted by: Darth Robo on April 25 2007,07:19

Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(
Posted by: deejay on April 25 2007,08:56

I’ll go on record saying that the Kenya AA from the Coffee Connection was the best drip coffee I’ve ever had, with a really strong taste of blackberries to it.  The Coffee Connection was a local Boston chain that flourished in the late 80’s/early 90’s, but was then unfortunately bought out by Starbucks.  I used to get their beans by mail order when I was in college, so we’re talking ‘91/’92 here.  I’m not sure if the discussion here is slamming the AA bean (have to disagree) or the light roast (have to agree).  

A catalog from another chain back then claimed that there was ten times as much Jamaica Blue Mountain sold in the US as was actually grown, and most of what was grown was sold in Japan.  IOW, most of what you’d find would be a cheap blend.  This catalog sold 100% JBM for $35/lb in ’91, and it basically admitted that it was nice coffee, but only expensive because of its rarity.  

I’m not sure whether I ever had the Kona from Coffee Connection.  It was around $15-$16/lb back then, and with most other varieties around $8-10, I didn’t see a need to spend more than I had to as a broke college student.  The Sumatra and the aged Sumatra were very nice, as were Ethiopian, Celebes, and the occasional peaberry variety they had for sale.  In fact, even the cheaper Columbian, Brazilian, Panamanian or Guatemalan stuff blew away anything else I could find then or now because of the quality of their roasts.  I can’t say I know much about espresso, but since no drip coffee has even come close to what I could get from the Coffee Connection back in the  day, I’ve basically given up being snooty about my choice of brew.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,09:24

I've been a semi-coffee snob for a couple decades, and I've never thought of good coffee as coming from particular countries. In my experience, good coffee is simply a matter of who chose, prepared, and roasted it. Peet's is the best -- just about any fresh dark-roasted house blend or French roast from Peet's will be superb, even if it's from some unglamorous place like Guatamala, Indonesia or Kenya, while a $30/lb JBM or Kona is usually a disappointment, esp. if it's light roasted. So 99% of good coffee is buying it from people who know what they're doing and then preparing it properly at home.

I'm still not as hardcore as my brother-in-law. He actually roasts his own beans, which I think is going way overboard.
Posted by: SLP on April 25 2007,09:48

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:22)
Scott,

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How typical of the Christian creationist....


The 'debate' went on for months with you posting cut and pastes from Brown's asinine 'online book' and you refusing to 'discuss' anything.  Most liklely because you are too awe-struck in your hero-worship and too plain ignorant to know any better.

A semi-literate person might have seen that what I linked to was no 'thread', but rather to the old KCFS site.  I had intended to link to the search results that I had found linking to the several (about 20) threads referring to Brown's claims, most of which you participated in, but for some reason that link did not take.

So, you did not even follow the link, and you concluded without any knowledge or reason to do so whatsoever that I was referring solely to one thread.

How do I live with myself?

Quite simply - I, perhaops subconsciously, make it a point not to behave or think the way a rube like you does.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it was my imopression after seeing so many of his claims refuted and the refutations unanswered.  It is highly ironic that a person who has gleefully claimed ignorance of the scientific issues discussed declare it 'wishful thinking' that Brown got demolished - how would you know any different?  Did Brown say so?

Of course, when one actually searches for the threads involving Brown's silly claims, one can find the one < I started pointing out his stupidity on biological issues >, which no creationists rebutted or even particiapted in.  Sorry, For the Dumbasses, your hero Brown is selling you a bill of goods and you are too wrapped up in your infantile hero worship and ideologically-driven 'truth filter' to know any better.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want to read the Brown thread?  Go for it.  It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do YOU live with yourself?  You refer to a  single thread regarding Brown's ignorant creationist pontifications.  I did not - I referred to Brown's claims in general.  I wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazing...

Brown's gibberish was demolished on KCFS with FtK often acting as the willing go-between as for some odd reason, Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.

FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims and still, it appears, worships the charlatan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On will note that I did not refer to a specific thread, and it is also a fact that you acted as a go-between most of the time.  That Brown sdhowed up for a couple of posts is immaterial - as you note there were more than 1000 posts in that one thread that you refer to alone.


One thing of note in that thread - the most consistent thing you did was cut and paste and cheerlead!  Why, your scientific insights were just so clearly... nonexistent.

As for my comment re: Brwon's ideas, here is a list of just a few of the most recent threads concerning Brown at the old KCFS board (THESE are what I was referring to for the most part):

< Walt Brown's dubious resume >

< Brown prediction falsified >

< Walt Brown's dishonesty regarding magnetic reversals >
That one is cute in that you rush to your hero's defense when his lack of geology field experience is pointed out - you basically declare that Walt's looking at a fault counts as geology field experience.
Classic!  

< Walt's 16 reasons >

A classic FtK retort:

"I no longer waste my time on pointing out errors in logic and interpretation from KCFS forum members. It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.

Why waste my time on you? I'll digest the information you give me and discuss it with less aggressive and close minded scientists. So, thanks for the info., but no, I'll discuss it no further in this particular venue."

Wow - sounds familiar....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ah, the projection.....


As for the rest, well, go f#$% yourself you stupid c#$%.

(I have to live up to my reputation of being so rude and uncivial, after all...)
Posted by: k.e on April 25 2007,09:53

I LIKE A LITTLE JAMAICAN OR COLUMBIAN MYSELF BUT MY FAVORITE IS GUATAMALAN LIGHTLY ROASTED ON A SPIT. HERE WE SERVE THEM WITH SALAD WHICH MAKES THEM TASTE REALLY GOOD PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE FED SALAD FOR 2 OR 3 WEEKS BEFORE ROASTING. THE LAST ONE WE HAD WAS A 7TH DAY ADVENTIST THEY ARE THE BEST BECAUSE THEY ALL GET TOGETHER ON A SATURDAY AND THAT'S WHEN WE ARE HUNGRY.
Posted by: slpage on April 25 2007,09:56

[quote=Ftk,April 24 2007,14:08][/quote]
Uh oh - I found a typo:


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".


Let me fix it:


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND IGNORED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".
Posted by: slpage on April 25 2007,09:58

Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,18:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of puts the lie to her claims of TONS OF EVIDENCE, no?
Posted by: slpage on April 25 2007,10:03

Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,07:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit...

I'm more of a Drambuie fan, myself.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,10:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2007,03:05)
From FTK's blog
< >

Funny how "science says so" only sometimes, and other times it's not to be trusted. FTK, what happened to keeping an open mind and not being dogmatic?

Why do you trust these "scientists" that say things you think are true, and not other "scientists" that happen to say things that you disagree with? Is that basically it? Anything that supports your world view is "science said so" and anything else is "evil darwinists"? No further thinking required.

FtK, did you even read the article?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. She eagerly snaps up some dubious survey that strokes her "religious = good person" preconceptions, yet she considers the evidence for a billions-of-years-old earth to be inconclusive. This is your brain on fundamentalism.
Posted by: Darth Robo on April 25 2007,10:38

"Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit..."

Yikes, must have been a good night!      :O
Posted by: slpage on April 25 2007,11:13

Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,10:38)
"Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit..."

Yikes, must have been a good night!      :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fun times....

After I emptied my intestines and drank a couple glasses of water, I was up for the night.

Amazing how much abuse a teenager's body can handle.
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,11:41

1) Darth Robo, yes I like vodka.

Slpage, although perhaps not quite as much as you did! Good work fella on your 16 year old antics. Help yourself to a gold star! ;-) You're quite right about the capabilities of the teenage body to withstand all sorts of punishment. My later teen years (#### my early 20s) were basically Jackass with a worse budget and lots of booze. I managed to fit some university there too, but mainly due to rugby, lots of fun was had.

2) Coffee snobs. The best thing you can get from Jamaica should be smoked. The best thing you can get from Colombia should be snorted. Stop pricking about with coffee. Now TEA! There's a truly wonderful drink.

3) FTK. Gonna support your claims any time today? Or are you going to cry us all a river about how rude and mean we are, stomp your foot about how you aren't going to discuss anything, and generally chuck teddy from the pram like usual?

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 25 2007,11:50

I can't help myself. Even though I had a religious upbringing, and thus should be well-behaved and polite, I must comment on one of the FtK quotes in slpage's most excellent rant.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, she's a bit more like a carp. Not enough teeth to be a piranha...
Posted by: JohnW on April 25 2007,11:55

Quote (SLP @ April 25 2007,09:48)
A classic FtK retort:

"I no longer waste my time on pointing out errors in logic and interpretation from KCFS forum members. It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, you're just a prawn in the game.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stop pricking about with coffee. Now TEA! There's a truly wonderful drink.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While P.J. O'Rourke usually annoys me, he did get this right: "There's only one thing to drink first thing in the morning while reading the newspaper, and it sure as he11 isn't tea."

Tea's for later in the day. My old creaky metabolism will no longer tolerate my drinking coffee all day.  :(

But hey, like indoor plumbing, coffee is one of those things the English have never quite mastered.  ;)
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,12:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey, like indoor plumbing, coffee is one of those things the English have never quite mastered.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Eeeee I can't stand them dirty indoor things."

I want programme, character, episode and the entire surrounding sketch please. A prize to the first one who get's it right.

Louis

P.S. We actually have great coffee, but it's all in little Italian coffee houses in obscure bits of London. Otherwise we get Starbucks, which is your fault. ;-)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,12:19

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2007,11:50)
I can't help myself. Even though I had a religious upbringing, and thus should be well-behaved and polite, I must comment on one of the FtK quotes in slpage's most excellent rant.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, she's a bit more like a carp. Not enough teeth to be a piranha...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like a lamprey.

EDIT: That was mean. Maybe < a remora > is more apt.
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,12:25

I still think she meant "pariah" and fucked up.

Louis
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on April 25 2007,12:27

Agree with Arden: Peet's rules (sippin' on some free Peet's at work, as we speak).

Never mind vodka... doesn't anybody drink BEER? I mean, of course, fine California ales, such as Mendocino's White Hawk Select IPA, my current brew of choice.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,12:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


P.S. We actually have great coffee, but it's all in little Italian coffee houses in obscure bits of London. Otherwise we get Starbucks, which is your fault. ;-)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, I'm going to advocate something unfashionable here.

**In Defense of Starbucks**

Okay, I know all the arguments against Starbucks, but there is one thing I have to say in their defense.

There was a time, not so long ago, up thru the 90's in fact, when it was flatass impossible to get anything resembling decent, much less GOOD coffee in 95+% of the surface area of the US. I spent time in the California Central Valley, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Texas, and it was largely a lost cause to get good coffee ANYWHERE in those states. In fact, I feel safe in saying that there was absolutely no good coffee anywhere in Oklahoma ever.

Now these places are coated with Starbucks, like everywhere else. Whatever else you say about them, one can now reliably get pretty good coffee in Tulsa, OK, Modesto, CA, Waco, TX, or the Indianapolis International Airport. That used to be completely frigging impossible.

So credit where credit's due.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still think she meant "pariah" and fucked up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh my god you're right!!!

What college did she go to again? ? ?
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,12:33

Beer? I've had a few.

Ringwood Fortyniner for preference or perhaps Old Thumper if feeling like getting seriously drunk.

Of course I have tasted American beer having lived over there for a while. It was like making love in a canoe.

"Making love in a canoe?" I hear you all cry.

Yes, I reply, fucking close to water.

Louis

P.S. The old ones are the...well...oldest.
Posted by: improvius on April 25 2007,12:46

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,13:25)
I still think she meant "pariah" and fucked up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I was just going to say that, but you beat me to it.  Still, it's pretty #### funny.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on April 25 2007,12:47

Now, now. The difference between your run-of-the-mill "American beer" and a fine California- or Oregon- micro-brewed ale is like the difference between cold Dunkin Donuts coffee and a steaming fresh-brewed cup of Kona blend. No comparison.

But you're the snooty brit. I understand, old chap. One must keep up appearances.  :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,12:55

Quote (improvius @ April 25 2007,12:46)
Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,13:25)
I still think she meant "pariah" and fucked up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I was just going to say that, but you beat me to it.  Still, it's pretty #### funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"There's no shame in being a pariah." -- Marge Simpson
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,13:09

"There's no shame in being a piranha" FTK.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 25 2007,13:21

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,12:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey, like indoor plumbing, coffee is one of those things the English have never quite mastered.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Eeeee I can't stand them dirty indoor things."

I want programme, character, episode and the entire surrounding sketch please.
A prize to the first one who get's it right.

Louis

P.S. We actually have great coffee, but it's all in little Italian coffee houses in obscure bits of London. Otherwise we get Starbucks, which is your fault. ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Programme=Blackadder2.
Char=Wife half of the couple considering buying Edmond's houe.
Episode=Money.
Sorrounding sketch=Blackadder is in debt to a church bank and the "baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells" is going to collect. So he is selling his house to raise cash.

Bloody funny!
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 25 2007,13:34

You swine, Elliot, I was just typing the answer, and got distracted. :angry:
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 25 2007,13:35

Back to DRINKS!

Tea=Assam, English breakfast, Yorkshire tea (hardwater).
Coffee=Couldn't give much of a ####.
Gin=Bombay Saphire, Gordons, Waitrose own. TBH I normally drink gin with tonic, ice and a slice of lemon and so the quality of gin is pretty much negated.
Brandy=VSOP fine champagne cognac. Anything better is wasted on my palate. I can't really distinguish between VSOP and XO by tongue (by wallet damage is a different matter).
Whisky=Almost any single malt and particularly the peaty ones. Johnny Walker will do, mind (don't care too much about label colour here). Jamesons is OK and Jack Daniels is drinkable (not sure if JD is really a whisky though and have serious doubts [still, it is an ok drink]).

BEER!=Too many to name but they are all "real ales", none of that dead chemical crap. Short list (just a taster)....Abbot's Ale, Bombardier, London Pride, Old Speckled Hen. God but they are good. The drinks of champions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,13:36

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2007,13:21)
Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,12:10)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey, like indoor plumbing, coffee is one of those things the English have never quite mastered.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Eeeee I can't stand them dirty indoor things."

I want programme, character, episode and the entire surrounding sketch please.
A prize to the first one who get's it right.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Programme=Blackadder2.
Char=Wife half of the couple considering buying Edmond's houe.
Episode=Money.
Sorrounding sketch=Blackadder is in debt to a church bank and the "baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells" is going to collect. So he is selling his house to raise cash.

Bloody funny!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowing Louis, I bet Stephen doesn't even get a prize.  :angry:
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 25 2007,13:41

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 25 2007,13:34)
You swine, Elliot, I was just typing the answer, and got distracted. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Alan,
You should invite ftk to your blog. It is more neutral there and people are not alowed to be as rude as here.

Not that she will go there and post anything of substance, but it will negate her whine about civility.

Yes, yes yes. I know the rudeness excuse is just smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 25 2007,13:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,13:36)
Knowing Louis, I bet Stephen doesn't even get a prize.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowing Louis, I probably wouldn't wanna collect if 1 was offered.

EDIT: It would probably mean another suit getting ruined due to apre tequila drunken activity involving curry. None of which I actually remember BTW.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 25 2007,14:01

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,09:24)
I've been a semi-coffee snob for a couple decades, and I've never thought of good coffee as coming from particular countries. In my experience, good coffee is simply a matter of who chose, prepared, and roasted it. Peet's is the best -- just about any fresh dark-roasted house blend or French roast from Peet's will be superb, even if it's from some unglamorous place like Guatamala, Indonesia or Kenya, while a $30/lb JBM or Kona is usually a disappointment, esp. if it's light roasted. So 99% of good coffee is buying it from people who know what they're doing and then preparing it properly at home.

I'm still not as hardcore as my brother-in-law. He actually roasts his own beans, which I think is going way overboard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Roasting is trivial with the right equipment, you get fresher coffee, and the green beans from Sweet Maria's are about half price of roasted coffee, plus I like lighter roasts in general (more acid).

Roasting coffee is one of my three hobbies, five if you count drinking the result a hobby separately.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 25 2007,14:05

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,13:09)
"There's no shame in being a piranha" FTK.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"When you're ideas are lame, you'll be a pinata" FTK

J-Dog
Posted by: blipey on April 25 2007,14:17

Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,07:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in that it doesn't taste particularly bad, sure.  I do prefer my liquor with a little flavor, however.  Vodka is a great thing that: adds alcohol to grapefruit juice, makes dry vermouth drinkable, puts a finish on a good bloody mary mix, and generally makes the women a little tipsy while drinking their foo-foo drinks.
Posted by: blipey on April 25 2007,14:38

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2007,13:35)
Back to DRINKS!

Tea=Assam, English breakfast, Yorkshire tea (hardwater).
Coffee=Couldn't give much of a ####.
Gin=Bombay Saphire, Gordons, Waitrose own. TBH I normally drink gin with tonic, ice and a slice of lemon and so the quality of gin is pretty much negated.
Brandy=VSOP fine champagne cognac. Anything better is wasted on my palate. I can't really distinguish between VSOP and XO by tongue (by wallet damage is a different matter).
Whisky=Almost any single malt and particularly the peaty ones. Johnny Walker will do, mind (don't care too much about label colour here). Jamesons is OK and Jack Daniels is drinkable (not sure if JD is really a whisky though and have serious doubts [still, it is an ok drink]).

BEER!=Too many to name but they are all "real ales", none of that dead chemical crap. Short list (just a taster)....Abbot's Ale, Bombardier, London Pride, Old Speckled Hen. God but they are good. The drinks of champions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the English Breakfast myself.  Can't say I'm much of a tea snob, not quite like I (and certainly not Arden or stevestory, those girly, 22-second espresso-sipping, coffee-house sitting homos) am with the coffee or the scotch.

I'm taking this time, stephen, to tell you the grand designer is thinking of terrible ways to undesign you for your malodorous statement on coffee.

Don't drink the gin, at least not since I stopped bartending a few years ago--Citadel and Tanqueray #10 being the ones I could choke down sober.

Brandy: like it as a mixer, but not often straight.  There are certainly things I like better at lower prices.

Tequila: delicious, Don Julio 1942 being my favorite sipping tequila--pleasantly warm without biting you from the get-go.  Some of the cheaper stuff that make good ritas: sauza Hornitos, Petron Silver, Don Eduardo Anejo.

Whisky:  the johnnies are blends (well, most of them), not to be compared to the single malts.  Though the black label makes a decent rusty nail or godfather.

Beer:  the nectar of the gods and one of the things that makes me ashamed of my American heritage.  Fortunately, the micro and craft breweries have ecome popular here and there is a lot of decent beer to be had if you look for it.  A few of my favorite American brews:

Unfiltered Wheat (hefeweisen):  Boulevard Brewing Co., Kansas City, MO

Moose Drool brown ale:  Big Sky Brewing, Missoula, MT

Winter Ale (English olde ale, malty): Alaskan Brewing Co., Juneau, AK.  Their rauchbier (smoked porter) is also worth a shot.  It's not for everyone, but their version is not so overly smoked as to be identical to liquid smoke flavor additive.
Posted by: jeannot on April 25 2007,14:59

If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.
Posted by: blipey on April 25 2007,15:02

Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2007,14:59)
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh, sounds like fun.  While talking about drinking is all well and good, actually drinking is better.  And drinking a bit while discussing (cussing?) things with a creationist is best.
Posted by: Louis on April 25 2007,15:03

Just to prove Arden wrong, Steve I shall provide you with a liquid and exceedingly drinkable (non tequila based of course) prize on out next piss up. Maidenhead this time?

Louis
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 25 2007,15:45

Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2007,14:59)
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is a pantsfront loader.
Posted by: argystokes on April 25 2007,15:54

Quote (blipey @ April 25 2007,13:02)
Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2007,14:59)
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh, sounds like fun.  While talking about drinking is all well and good, actually drinking is better.  And drinking a bit while discussing (cussing?) things with a creationist is best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it's < this guy, > he's probably quite a bit smarter than Dave. I've invited him over here.
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,16:16

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2007,14:35)
Back to DRINKS!

Tea=Assam, English breakfast, Yorkshire tea (hardwater).
Coffee=Couldn't give much of a ####.
Gin=Bombay Saphire, Gordons, Waitrose own. TBH I normally drink gin with tonic, ice and a slice of lemon and so the quality of gin is pretty much negated.
Brandy=VSOP fine champagne cognac. Anything better is wasted on my palate. I can't really distinguish between VSOP and XO by tongue (by wallet damage is a different matter).
Whisky=Almost any single malt and particularly the peaty ones. Johnny Walker will do, mind (don't care too much about label colour here). Jamesons is OK and Jack Daniels is drinkable (not sure if JD is really a whisky though and have serious doubts [still, it is an ok drink]).

BEER!=Too many to name but they are all "real ales", none of that dead chemical crap. Short list (just a taster)....Abbot's Ale, Bombardier, London Pride, Old Speckled Hen. God but they are good. The drinks of champions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assam is pretty good. Been drinking that, Earl Grey, Orange Dulce, and Green Jasmine lately.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 25 2007,16:24

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,16:16)
Ass.. is pretty good. Been drinking that, Earl Grey, Orange Dulce, and Green Jasmine lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


QUOTE MINED, BIIIIATCH!!


Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,17:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 25 2007,00:34)
Since I gave up caffeine, I haven't had any more arrhythmia episodes. Is there any such thing as a good decaf coffee?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Coffee decaf'd by the < Swiss Water Method > is not bad. You can get such coffees at many of the major players.
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,17:23

Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,08:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


#### yeah. I just didn't have anything interesting to say about it. I get Burnett's and mix it with Ginger Ale.
Posted by: Bing on April 25 2007,17:55

Hey, with all this coffee talk, should I mention that I work for < Van Houtte >?

Wes, have you tried any dark roasts?  Typically much lower caffeine than the medium and light roasts (but not caffeine-free), with better flavour than a decaf.

PM me with an IRL mailing addy and I'll see if I can swing some frac-pac samples for you to try.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 25 2007,18:17

Thanks for the pointers on decaf coffee.

Beer: Top pick for me is a German import, Spaten Optimator. In Texas, Shiner Bock was pretty good. And when it is hot out and the bank account is looking parched, too, Miller Genuine Draft is still beer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,18:28

< This beer > crushes all your other beers like puny little ants.  :O
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:06

Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 25 2007,19:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,18:28)
< This beer > crushes all your other beers like puny little ants.  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ja, ja, but I have heard that it is too dangerous.  

You drink a 6 pack und invade Poland,  put on your wife's clothes, I mean "liederhosen" or try to become Pope.

Achtung!
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:11

Blipey, Louis, I'm all about getting some beers. I elect you all members of the After the Bar Closes Varsity Drinking Team. We need a good name. Or mascot. Or whatever.
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:16

Also, we want to avoid bringing shame and disgrace to the Panda's Thumb group. Problem is, we'll all be tore up from the floor up. So we might have to all wear fake moustaches or something at these events.


Posted by: carlsonjok on April 25 2007,19:19

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:11)
Blipey, Louis, I'm all about getting some beers. I elect you all members of the After the Bar Closes Varsity Drinking Team. We need a good name. Or mascot. Or whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




EDIT:Here's your mascot, < homos >- ds
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:24

that's really good.
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:27

I think this is vodka:


Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,19:29


Posted by: qetzal on April 25 2007,21:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,11:56)
My old creaky metabolism will no longer tolerate my drinking coffee all day.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saint stevestory preserve me from such a fate. I'm useless without my 10 cups a day. ;-)
Posted by: stevestory on April 25 2007,21:14

15 years of drinking nothing but black coffee and booze has f%*&ed up my stomach. I don't need the caffeine, though. If you do, I think you might benefit by switching to the straight up caffeine pills. Hopefully they're buffered, or you can down an antacid when you take it.
Posted by: qetzal on April 25 2007,21:15

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 25 2007,18:17)
And when it is hot out and the bank account is looking parched, too, Miller Genuine Draft is still beer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horrors!
Posted by: deejay on April 25 2007,22:29

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:06)
Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Steve-

I lived in Montana for 12 years, and as much as I'd love to be a homer for the local stuff, I still prefer most of the brews from Deschutes, particularly Black Butte Porter and Obsidian Stout.  Deschutes makes a pale ale called Mirror Pond, and lots of people like it, but I much prefer Sierra Nevada, which is my default beer.  

I agree with Wes on Spaten Optimator, but I have worlds more international beers still to try.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 25 2007,22:32

American beer : "Making love in a canoe"
Posted by: blipey on April 26 2007,02:07

Quote (deejay @ April 25 2007,22:29)
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:06)
Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Steve-

I lived in Montana for 12 years, and as much as I'd love to be a homer for the local stuff, I still prefer most of the brews from Deschutes, particularly Black Butte Porter and Obsidian Stout.  Deschutes makes a pale ale called Mirror Pond, and lots of people like it, but I much prefer Sierra Nevada, which is my default beer.  

I agree with Wes on Spaten Optimator, but I have worlds more international beers still to try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will second the Black Butte Porter.  It slipped my mind; I do like it more than Moose Drool (which is still a good beer).  The Obsidian is decent as well.

As for a Varsity Drinking Team name, here are my proposals:

1.  International Society of Creative Imbibers & Drunks

2.  World-wide Association of Drinkers

3.  We may be drunk but we know that beer was invented more than 6,000 years ago.

4.  Sorry, DI who?
Posted by: Louis on April 26 2007,04:38

The Ediacaran Varsity Imbibing and Libation Society?

The Ediacaran Alcoholism and Tard Mockery Expositions?

Mind you with the moustaches you suggest SteveS we should probably call it the Dirty Sanchez Drinking Society.

Excellent a drinking society. Ok, as Head Drinker I propose a meeting this Friday at 7pm BST. All UKers come to London and we'll drink ourselves into merry oblivion. You foreigners and colonials can sit around with your shitty beer and cry softly, or you can come over here and enjoy real beer (with the foreskin and fingernails of the original brewer in there).
If I weren't at work I'd start already.

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 26 2007,06:31

The Ediacaran Drinking and Libation Society already exists as "The Panda's Thumb".
Posted by: Darth Robo on April 26 2007,06:43

Pictures aren't loading for me.   :(   (I've NEARLY got my new ISP up an running - 7 months!  AARRGH! (End rant))  :angry:


My mum sometimes brings me a bottle of vodka when she comes back home.  Apparently it's cheap (I can't remember the name of it), but it's 43% instead of the usual 37, and unlike most cheap (sh*tty) vodkas, it goes down very smooth, very nice.  If I can get hold of proper Russian vodka, I like that too.
Posted by: Louis on April 26 2007,06:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 26 2007,13:31)
The Ediacaran Drinking and Libation Society already exists as "The Panda's Thumb".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't look at me, guv'nor. Big boys done it and run away.

Louis

P.S. Boys, it's a mod fight, come watch!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 26 2007,13:27

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,15:03)
Just to prove Arden wrong, Steve I shall provide you with a liquid and exceedingly drinkable (non tequila based of course) prize on out next piss up. Maidenhead this time?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude. OK Maidenhead will do. Do you know any decent pubs yet? This Saturday would be perfect for me (28th April). Would that be OK with you?
Failing that, Same day, Windsor or London would also be OK.
Friday 27th (evening) is possible but much more of a logistic challenge as I am at work that day.
Tequila is a bleedin nightmare. Tequila=memory loss.
Posted by: argystokes on April 26 2007,14:13

Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,00:07)
Quote (deejay @ April 25 2007,22:29)
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:06)
Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Steve-

I lived in Montana for 12 years, and as much as I'd love to be a homer for the local stuff, I still prefer most of the brews from Deschutes, particularly Black Butte Porter and Obsidian Stout.  Deschutes makes a pale ale called Mirror Pond, and lots of people like it, but I much prefer Sierra Nevada, which is my default beer.  

I agree with Wes on Spaten Optimator, but I have worlds more international beers still to try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will second the Black Butte Porter.  It slipped my mind; I do like it more than Moose Drool (which is still a good beer).  The Obsidian is decent as well.

As for a Varsity Drinking Team name, here are my proposals:

1.  International Society of Creative Imbibers & Drunks

2.  World-wide Association of Drinkers

3.  We may be drunk but we know that beer was invented more than 6,000 years ago.

4.  Sorry, DI who?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can do pretty well with the Northwest brews.
IPA -- Bridgeport
Other good lighter ales -- Redhook Copper Hook
Hefeweisen -- Widmer or Pyramid
Mediumish Ale -- Hale's Red Menace, Mack n Jack
Porter -- Black Butte

I really disliked the Obsidian the one time I got it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 26 2007,14:20

Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...
Posted by: argystokes on April 26 2007,14:26

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,12:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tis true, I haven't found a stout out here that I particularly like. Well, Hale's has a good one, but you've got to go to the brewery to get it.
Posted by: blipey on April 26 2007,18:50

Quote (argystokes @ April 26 2007,14:26)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,12:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tis true, I haven't found a stout out here that I particularly like. Well, Hale's has a good one, but you've got to go to the brewery to get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will agree with this.  The best European brews are better than the best American brews almost every time, probably all the time as regards dark beers.  For example, I think the Boulevard Brewing Company in Kansas City does a very nice job with 3/4 of its brews (hefeweisen, pale ale, belgian white, etc).  It really completely drops the ball with its porter and stout--absolutely foul, dark beer for people who like Miller Lite imo, watery and thin, ugh.

Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason.  So, they don't make it very well either.  This isn't to say that there aren't some very nice examples of stouts and porters around in tiny places in North America, but you have to go find them.  And they're not quite as good as the best of the Scots, Irish, or German darks.
Posted by: stevestory on April 26 2007,19:02

Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 26 2007,19:10

Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,18:50)
Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason.  So, they don't make it very well either.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!!!!  I homebrew the very best porter in the United States.

;)
Posted by: blipey on April 26 2007,19:22

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 26 2007,19:10)
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,18:50)
Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason.  So, they don't make it very well either.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!!!!  I homebrew the very best porter in the United States.

;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out Lenny, you homo.  I'm into home visitations with people who make wild-ass claims.  If you don't retract that I'll be forced to come over and take your porter bottle whole...even though I'm straight.  Uh, and an agnostic.  Also I'm a marine.
Posted by: snoeman on April 26 2007,19:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,14:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's weird what people will drink on occasion.  I was in Dublin several years ago on a business trip, and my colleague that was hosting us took us to a spot for dinner called the "Badass Cafe" - a kinda sorta "American" style place.

They had a broader selection of beers beyond the standard pub fare of Guinness (Murphy's if you're in Cork) and Harp. Naturally, I figured our Irish hosts would go for the Heineken, or something Belgian or German.  Nope: they went straight to the BUD LIGHT.

As I found out, this was merely a temporary aberration, and we proceeded to a more normal Irish mode of drinking later, or at least that's what they told me.

By the way, I seem to be missing about eight hours from the evening of February 17, 2001.  If anyone has seen them, please let me know.  I'd like to have them back, no questions asked.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 26 2007,19:45

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm having a few of these tonight:

I tend to prefer Vienna lagers or unfiltered wheat beers (with an occasional stout thrown in), but this one is actually pretty good.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 26 2007,20:24

Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,19:22)
Watch out Lenny, you homo.  I'm into home visitations with people who make wild-ass claims.  If you don't retract that I'll be forced to come over and take your porter bottle whole...even though I'm straight.  Uh, and an agnostic.  Also I'm a marine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I heard that Marines are, well,  pussies . . . . (snicker) (giggle)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 26 2007,23:11

So has Pirahna Lady made a vow to ignore us from now on?

Guess we have to concentrate on Dave Scot again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 26 2007,23:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,23:11)
So has Pirahna Lady made a vow to ignore us from now on?

Guess we have to concentrate on Dave Scot again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


she's busy linking to creationsafaris.com

CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE, ARDEN. FROM BOTH SIDES.
Posted by: someotherguy on April 26 2007,23:37

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's waaaay better on tap.  

As for the others talking about American stouts, don't write them all off until you've tried the Stone's Imperial Russian Stout.
Posted by: blipey on April 27 2007,13:37

Quote (someotherguy @ April 26 2007,23:37)
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's waaaay better on tap.  

As for the others talking about American stouts, don't write them all off until you've tried the Stone's Imperial Russian Stout.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A pretty good example of a stout, the finish is ever so slightly too metallic IMO, but even so it is very nice.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 27 2007,13:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 26 2007,23:17)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,23:11)
So has Pirahna Lady made a vow to ignore us from now on?

Guess we have to concentrate on Dave Scot again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


she's busy linking to creationsafaris.com

CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE, ARDEN. FROM BOTH SIDES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well if you visit her "blog" you'll see "she's" been very busy.

Step one: Find a science story.
Step two: Find some inane commentary and reprint it wholesale.
For example
< >

FTK: I challenge you to find a single piece of evidence to support your (well, you just regurgitated it but nonetheless)  contention that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian preconceptions have held back a promising field of genetic research
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or even  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is taking back its rights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I mean, you are a fucking joke FTK. You take an article created by actual scientists and then the monkeys over at the creolabs put the idiot spin on it and you reprint it wholesale. For the Kids, right?

So, this promising field of generic research now opening up due to the efforts of Intelligent design advocates, would you care to name the intelligent design scientists current doing reseach on "junk DNA". If you can name a single one I'll take you on a wager. I'll never post here again if you can find a name. A single ID scientist researching "junk DNA". That's easy right? After all,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinians, you have been exposed as usurpers. Get out of the way. The field is not evolving. Intelligent design is taking back its rights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

or is that just so much smoke and mirrors too?

I CHALLENGE YOU FTK! BACK UP YOUR EMPTY ASSERTIONS OR GET THE HECK OUT OF DODGE! PUT A NAME TO THESE ID SCIENTISTS OR STOP USING REAL SCIENTISTS WORK TO PROMOTE YOUR AGENDA!

WHERE IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO
< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm >
DOES IT SAY A WORD ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENTISTS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DISCOVERY?

YOU ARE A LIAR! LIE BY OMISSION IS A LIE NONETHELESS
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 27 2007,13:55

Quote (blipey @ April 27 2007,13:37)
Quote (someotherguy @ April 26 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's waaaay better on tap.  

As for the others talking about American stouts, don't write them all off until you've tried the Stone's Imperial Russian Stout.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A pretty good example of a stout, the finish is ever so slightly too metallic IMO, but even so it is very nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stout can be OK.
But the best beers IMO are hoppy bitters. Around 4-6% ABV. Anything stronger tends to be too sweet and anything less tends to lack flavour.
I guess it is all down to personal taste.
Now I like guinness. Not as much as bitter but it is good. Especially in Ireland, although the nearest I have been is southern NI. Not quite Dublin but close.

In the USA the best (easily available) I have tried are red elephant beer and red wolf. Not great but passable. In ST. Louis I went to a place where microbreweries abounded (the French quarter IIRC). Some decent beer there, but nothing to threaten Old Speckled Hen. But then again, I am biased.
Posted by: someotherguy on April 27 2007,14:31

I simply don't get this "Darwinists are impeding research into so-called junk dna" argument.  The people who can most legitimately be called "Darwinists" are the scientists who are mostly likely to support the supremacy of natural selection and the idea that most or all traits arise over the course of evolution because they provide reproductive benefits to their recipients (ie., they are functional).  FTK should really read some serious adaptationist writing like What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.  In it, he is very skeptical of the idea  that living things have non-functional traits or genes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 27 2007,15:00

do you notice how in the blog post I posted a snapshot of earlier itself FTK uses misdirection to make it appear (IMHO) that Science Daily is praising ID scientists.

I've put the URLs linked to in the image and shaded the text into two blocks.
The inital link is to the usual creobot Idiocy site. Carved up into  morsels suitable for the weak of mind to reprint without further thought.
Yet the following paragraph of text after the link is more or less straight from the article. So not from < "here" > after all.
The shaded text below is from the link at the start of the article.

How dishonest can you get? And shes doing it for the kids!
Posted by: stevestory on April 27 2007,15:02

Quote (someotherguy @ April 27 2007,15:31)
I simply don't get this "Darwinists are impeding research into so-called junk dna" argument.  The people who can most legitimately be called "Darwinists" are the scientists who are mostly likely to support the supremacy of natural selection and the idea that most or all traits arise over the course of evolution because they provide reproductive benefits to their recipients (ie., they are functional).  FTK should really read some serious adaptationist writing like What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.  In it, he is very skeptical of the idea  that living things have non-functional traits or genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


creationists like FTK and Salvador: "Darwinists are impeding research into so-called junk dna"

Number of papers published in the leading ID journal PCID mentioning "Junk DNA" since 2006: < 0 >

Number of papers published in the scientific literature mentioning "Junk DNA" since 2006: < 268 >
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on April 27 2007,16:00

Haha.
"Darwinists" are impeding "ID research" the same way Manny Ramirez is impeding me from playing in the All-Star Game.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on April 27 2007,16:26

Not to mention the fact that I've read a couple of dozen papers on functions of junk DNA written before Intelligent Design existed.
Posted by: blipey on April 28 2007,00:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK should really read some serious adaptationist writing like What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Surely you didn't mean to waste so many words?  Wouldn't this be more appropriate:

FTK should really read.
Posted by: Louis on April 30 2007,05:47

Piranha Lady. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh bugger, now I'm mocking, shucks there goes my "Nice Guy to IDCists" Scouting Badge I was going for.

Funny how FTK is "All about the science" on her own, well controlled, comment removable blog, but is strangely reticent when somewhere she cannot control. I wonder if this point has been made before. An uncharitable person would possibly come to an unflattering conclusion about For the Piranhas Kids.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 01 2007,20:18

< DS and FtK reinforce each other's scientifically-based opinions about global warming >, after Dave notes that April was unseasonably cool in his part of the galaxy.

He needs to get out more, perhaps head to (gasp) France, or England, where < ScienceDaily reports > that April was the warmest on record in northern Europe, based on weather records dating back 350 years...

Of course, gathering actual data beyond the end of his nose would be completely out of character for DS, and FtK probably is still wondering how to spell "piranha", so her research efforts are being employed elsewhere.
Posted by: blipey on May 01 2007,21:05

Yeah.  The logic is fabulous.  We have these gems:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guys like Al Gore really irk me though. If it's as HUGE a problem as he indicates, you'd think the man would practise what he preaches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, that's right; Al Gore's potential hypocrisy has a direct bearing on whether or not the phenomenon of global warming is happening.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard some of the "experts" say we only have about a decade before things go to ####. I'm seriously doubting that prediction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



translated: I'm doubting this because my church friends that don't like evolution don't like some of the people who do some studies about things like global warming and reality.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 01 2007,22:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, that's right; Al Gore's potential hypocrisy has a direct bearing on whether or not the phenomenon of global warming is happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We shouldn't act surprised, this is a person who thinks evolution is conclusively disproven by the fact that 'Darwinists' all have bad attitudes.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on May 01 2007,22:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 01 2007,20:18)
< DS and FtK reinforce each other's scientifically-based opinions about global warming >, after Dave notes that April was unseasonably cool in his part of the galaxy.

He needs to get out more, perhaps head to (gasp) France, or England, where < ScienceDaily reports > that April was the warmest on record in northern Europe, based on weather records dating back 350 years...

Of course, gathering actual data beyond the end of his nose would be completely out of character for DS, and FtK probably is still wondering how to spell "piranha", so her research efforts are being employed elsewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here in Wales it's been ridiculously hot for ages. We had a period of cold damp weather (about a week) just after a month of unseasoable heat, and it's getting hot again. Has been for the past week or so.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 02 2007,18:57

In a < comment thread > filled with DaveScot's explanations about his height, the location of his truck and property, and descriptions of his neighbors, FtK encourages Dave to beat up Blipey and also looks on approvingly while her kids play god.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We get a lot of Herons here too. Last spring a pair of Mallards had some eggs on a small island the kids fish off of. We kept an eye on them and made sure the pair were well fed, but in the end a freaking heron had the eggs for lunch. Hubby was seriously pissed. Now, when the kids see herons on the pond, they go for their guns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope that her kids don't tell anybody about heronicide when they pick up their prizes for the duck stamp contest this month. And someday I hope that they learn about the < Migratory Bird Treaty Act >, which was amended in 1998 to allow the fine for a misdemeanor violation of that act to range up to $15,000. And yes, if you want to know, Great Blue Herons are < protected under that law, > as well as various Kansas statutes.

Of course, when the bible tells you that you have dominion over the earth, you really don't have to pay attention to those cheeky laws that restrict what you can do to the planet. When the Rapture comes, you get to leave this planet for the heathens to live on!
Posted by: celdd on May 02 2007,21:56

Well, Los Angeles has had about 2.5 inches of rain for this precipitation year which ends in June compared to an average of approximately 12 to 14 inches per year.  Where I'm at, south of  LA, I would guess we got less than an inch because lots of times LA got rain, but we didn't.
Posted by: Ftk on May 02 2007,22:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope that her kids don't tell anybody about heronicide when they pick up their prizes for the duck stamp contest this month. And someday I hope that they learn about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which was amended in 1998 to allow the fine for a misdemeanor violation of that act to range up to $15,000. And yes, if you want to know, Great Blue Herons are protected under that law, as well as various Kansas statutes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time.

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.  And, they've also been through hunter's saftey.  My husband is a stickler about the rules.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, when the bible tells you that you have dominion over the earth, you really don't have to pay attention to those cheeky laws that restrict what you can do to the planet. When the Rapture comes, you get to leave this planet for the heathens to live on!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



News flash, Dave...

I'm not a Premillennial Dispensationalist, so I don’t find biblical support for a first “rapture”, a "tribulation" period for the "heathens", and a “1000 year reign”.  In other words, I’m not a Tim LaHaye fan.  I take care of the planet like anyone else.  My husband built our home with conservation in mind.  It's a fairly large home, but he did quite a few things so that our energy usage is much lower than the norm.  

Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 02 2007,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you don't know why anyone would want to visit Dave? A tacit acknowledgement of his, uh, personality problems?

Incidentally, you've misspelled Blipey's name four times now. It's Blipey, not 'Bilpey'.

And it's 'Piranha', not 'Pirahna'. A Portuguese word.  :p
Posted by: Ftk on May 02 2007,22:43

Blip, Bilp, Blup...whatever.

He seems to spend quite a bit of time and energy on Dave.  I'm thinkin' he might have a crush on the poor guy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 02 2007,22:58

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:43)
Blip, Bilp, Blup...whatever.

He seems to spend quite a bit of time and energy on Dave.  I'm thinkin' he might have a crush on the poor guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, you just don't do the fag jokes with the same panache as Dave. Nice try, though. :(

Besides, Dave's ugly as a mud fence. I should think 'Bilpey' would have better taste. :O
Posted by: Ftk on May 02 2007,23:05

Dave is not "ugly as a mud fence".  Here's a thought...how about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 02 2007,23:16

I can do that.



Of course, that was before my two major abdominal surgeries in 2004. This one was taken within the past month.




Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 02 2007,23:21

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,23:05)
Dave is not "ugly as a mud fence".  Here's a thought...how about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well, here's my college graduation picture:



See? MUCH better looking than Dave. :angry:
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 02 2007,23:24

Arden,

Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted by: argystokes on May 03 2007,00:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's a thought...how about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blardy har har! You show me yours I show you mine.
Posted by: blipey on May 03 2007,01:10

Welcome back, Fdp, FUkids, FcK, whoever:

Couldn't stay away from the fan club, huh?  Oh wait, sorry.  That was a question.  You've been away so long that I almost forgot how poorly you deal with those.  Please disregard any and all questions that might have appeared in this paragraph.  Okay?  Oops.

Since I have broken the question ice, here are some more.

1.  Why'd you pop in this time?

2.  What the #### does this mean:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is quite well different from *quite* well, how about quite well?

3.  As regards this passage of yours:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you have scary dogs?  Or just ones like DaveTard?
Why is it weird that I would want to visit DaveTard?  I believe I have explained in great detail why I (and others) might like to visit him.  Imagination isn't your strong point is it?  Please do remember that I'm intending to visit you as well when I get home--just a couple of weeks now.  And of course Joe Gallien is on the list as well.  Is it weird to want to visit the two of you?  Perhaps I'm doing it out of Christian kindness to spread the truth?

Oh, and why do you feel your opinion should be heard on this issue and not on, you know, the important ones like science and all?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,03:07

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope that her kids don't tell anybody about heronicide when they pick up their prizes for the duck stamp contest this month. And someday I hope that they learn about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which was amended in 1998 to allow the fine for a misdemeanor violation of that act to range up to $15,000. And yes, if you want to know, Great Blue Herons are protected under that law, as well as various Kansas statutes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time.

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.  And, they've also been through hunter's saftey.  My husband is a stickler about the rules.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, when the bible tells you that you have dominion over the earth, you really don't have to pay attention to those cheeky laws that restrict what you can do to the planet. When the Rapture comes, you get to leave this planet for the heathens to live on!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



News flash, Dave...

I'm not a Premillennial Dispensationalist, so I don’t find biblical support for a first “rapture”, a "tribulation" period for the "heathens", and a “1000 year reign”.  In other words, I’m not a Tim LaHaye fan.  I take care of the planet like anyone else.  My husband built our home with conservation in mind.  It's a fairly large home, but he did quite a few things so that our energy usage is much lower than the norm.  

Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*yawn* fascinating...
No wonder you've not been around, such a busy, fascinating life.
So, you allow your kids to shoot at a protected species. Disgusting. What is that teaching them? Oh, man has dominion over all species. I fergot.
Posted by: Louis on May 03 2007,03:39

FTK aka Piranha Lady,

What the #### is creepy about wanting to meet in real life someone you've met on line?

If I were in any of you people's vicinity (or you in mine) I'd cheerfully try to meet up and buy you a beer or two. We in the less paranoid and fear filled world of rational thought call this "being sociable" or perhaps "putting a face to a name" or one of many perfectly normal every day social activities we humans participate in. I openly state that I have a standing invitation to any of you who come to London or the UK (or even nearby Europe if I have the time)   to please feel free to come and meet up and I will quite happily stand you a beer or two and chat about this and that. It's part of being a secure, happy, social individual.

I think it speaks volumes about your (plural and singular in this case) levels of paranoia, fear and general psychological unrest that you assume we "evolutionists" (for want of a better term) are somehow "out to get you". Whether that be in a simple science discussion on a message board or in real life. Frankly it's more than a whisper pathetic.

As a scientist I regularly meet people at conferences who I only know through their papers and maybe the occasional email exchange. Never once has there been any unpleasantness in a real life meeting (despite some vehement disagreements about the science) and I've made some stunningly good friends this way.

I am honestly shocked by Dave Scott's behaviour and your advocacy and support of it. It doesn't say very complimentary things about you that you think acting in this way is somehow suitable.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 03 2007,06:26

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time.

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.  And, they've also been through hunter's saftey.  My husband is a stickler about the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the kind words about my intelligence.

It's good to hear that your kids know the rules. Now they should follow them.

Taking potshots at any protected bird with any kind of gun is still illegal. The language of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits attempts to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill,..." protected species. Herons are MORE protected than mallards; there is no season on herons. Unfortunately there is no organization called "Herons Unlimited". BB guns can kill, and they can certainly maim.

So please pass this along to your husband as well. He may know the "rules" about hunting ducks in season, but it is fairly obvious he, you, and your kids are ignorant about a federal law that has been on the books since the early 20th century.

I also find it odd that you feel that you and your family had been "taking care" of the mallards by providing them with a pond, and some food, but don't feel the same about the herons. What's the difference? Cuteness?  Is that a parameter that should be applied to make decisions about which creatures should be harrassed, and which should be protected?
Posted by: Louis on May 03 2007,06:44

Albatrossity2,

I'm noticing a few trends in some of our IDCist chums. Paranoia, fear, a lack of humility, and a total unwillingness to consider that they can be wrong. That's the total so far, I'm sure there will be more to add.

Be is shooting at endangered/protected species or dealing with the drivel they claim is science when it's not or meeting people (gasp) face to face, it's all the same.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 03 2007,06:50

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aren't herons allowed to eat too?


Weren't they intelligently designed to eat baby ducks?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 03 2007,06:53

Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,23:05)
Dave is not "ugly as a mud fence".  Here's a thought...how about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, weren't YOU the one bragging about what a terrific-looking blonde you are?

And, in typical creationist fashion, wasn't it YOU who didn't produce anything whatsoever to back up your claim?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 03 2007,06:58

Quote (blipey @ May 03 2007,01:10)
Welcome back, Fdp, FUkids, FcK, whoever:

Couldn't stay away from the fan club, huh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's even more an attention whore than Tapeworm Paley is.  (shrug)
Posted by: George on May 03 2007,08:23

Just popped in to catch up and thought I'd bring the converstation back to the really important matters.

Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My English lecturer in university (in Ireland) was going over Peer Gynt with us.  He was describing all the horrible trials the trolls made Peer go through in order to become one of them: rolling in shite, eating worms and drinking bull's urine.  Then: "Of course, some people drink Smithwick's."

Also note, it's pronounced smithix with a hard th like in that and those.  It'll help you avoid some slagging when you visit here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,08:43

ah, so now when we report FTK to the wildlife police at least they'll know who they are looking for!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,08:48

Perhaps the answer should be obvious, but are 'really4kids' and 'ftk' one and the same person?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also find it odd that you feel that you and your family had been "taking care" of the mallards by providing them with a pond, and some food, but don't feel the same about the herons. What's the difference? Cuteness?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's long been pointed out that people are much more supportive of protecting endangered animals if they're cute. This is why people are trying so hard to protect pandas and dolphins but why Javanese rhinos are probably doomed.

Frankly I think Great Blue Herons are much cooler than Mallards, but that opinion wouldn't lead me to shoot at Mallards with a bb gun.
Posted by: Ftk on May 03 2007,08:51

Oh great.  Now I'm going to have to post pictures of myself because that is the single worst picture ever taken of me, and it's a couple years old....UGH!!

I'd seriously like to know who in the #### dug up that picture and how they knew it was me.  My name was not in that paper so it's someone who knows me...

Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up.  Someone went to some work to find that one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,08:56

Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,08:51)
Oh great.  Now I'm going to have to post pictures of myself because that is the single worst picture ever taken of me, and it's a couple years old....UGH!!

I'd seriously like to know who in the #### dug up that picture and how they knew it was me.  My name was not in that paper so it's someone who knows me...

Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up.  Someone went to some work to find that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


welcome to the Internet FTK, welcome to the internet......
Posted by: blipey on May 03 2007,09:29

Wow.  I have already met you, Ftk.  Can't say that it was super memorable though.  I was sitting about4 rows back and a few seats to house right of you.  Good stuff.  Those were th good old days, huh?  Hearings about science that didn't accomplish anything rational, a dude from Turkey who may have been certifiably insane (though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--English is at least his 2nd language), a whole bunch of creationists who dodged questions....

Oh yeah, and the couple in front of me who said during testimony that this was certainly not about religion in any way.  Then, in the foyer during a break, they disagreed with me and told me I was going to #### because of that point of disagreement.

Good stuff.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,10:07

FTK, is your real name Alice Wright by any chance?  :)

Just my first 10 second attempt to trawl the internets for information.....
Posted by: deejay on May 03 2007,10:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ALRIGHT SHUT UP AND LISTEN CAUSE I'M TALKING / FRISKY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to extend a big, big doff of my 'tard cap to Richard for that post.
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,11:27

OH YEAH I'M NOT FALLING FOR TAHT OLD TRICK.
YOU SAID YOU WERE 16 AND I'M NOT GETTING CAUGHT OVER JAIL BAIT.
BESIDES I STILL THINK YOU'RE A 50 YEAR OLD MALE.

WHO IS THAT? RTH'S MOTHER?
BTW SHE BEGGED ME TO  COME OVER LAST NIGHT HAHAHA I BITE ME SOMETIMES.

FTK CAN I HAVE YOUR DEAD MALLARDS FOR MY COPPER SPANGIAL BIRD DOGS?
THEY ONLY EAT COMMEDIANS AND ONLY KNOW HOW TO HUNT CANNED FOOD.

I'M BREEDING A SUPER DOG THAT CAN GET COLD BEER FROM THE FRIDGE AND SERVE CHEESY POOFS WHILE ANSWERING THE PHONE AND CHASING CHAIN SAWS.

DON'T LISTEN TO RTH ......ALL MY MOSQUITOES ARE VEGITARIANS AND THEY CAN HUM HANDEL'S MESSIAH.

DO YOU LIKE EATING? I DO.
OUR LOCAL CHINESE RESTAURANT HAS CHOW CHOW ON THE MENU. THEY ARE AN EXOTIC 4 LEGGED ANIMAL THAT DOUBLES AS A FEROCIOUS GUARD DOG OR SO MR B.F. HOWMAIN SEZ AND HE COOKS MALLARD ESPECIALLY FOR ME  TOO.

IF YOU COME OVER BRING A GUN AND WE CAN SHOOT THINGS. BUT DON'T COME AFTER DARK BECAUSE I'M ALLOWED TO SHOOT ANYONE. MY LOCAL POLICEMAN LIKES TO SHOOT THINGS TOO SO BRING DONUTS TO STOP HIM FROM SHOOTING YOU TOO.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on May 03 2007,11:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up.  Someone went to some work to find that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First of all, wasn't me.
And you can't seriously believe that Jack would do anything like that. I doubt Josh or Liz post or lurk here (well, I know they don't lurk, because that's not their style). Jeremy hasn't been on the KCFS forums much lately; I doubt he's hanging around here. I really don't know Burt, so I suppose it's a possibility, but I think it was someone not on your list of suspects.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,11:33

This was so beautiful I almost cried:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EVERY TARD
HAS A HART
ITS TEH START
A WORK OF ART

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd put it in my sig, but it'd take up too much room.  :(
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,11:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 03 2007,10:07)
FTK, is your real name Alice Wright by any chance?  :)

Just my first 10 second attempt to trawl the internets for information.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so we have a name and a face.

And "tracking people down" is typically done by religious nut jobs, not working scientists.

What are you so scared of FTK?

Paranoia.....
Posted by: Louis on May 03 2007,11:45

Whoa there FTK!

"You people" is horribly plural and inclusive, I neither support nor endorse your "unmasking". Nor will I comment on your appearance in any manner (other than the deliberately comedy manner that I did before you were revealed).

For the record I think the posting of people's personal details and/or images is occasionally (context dependant) beyond the pale. I think this is one of those cases, all the banter aside.

Louis
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,11:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, btw, if some wacko lurker decides to track me down, we have 2 dogs, countless guns and tight security.  Just FYI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes but we have < Pygocentrus nattereri >
Posted by: Ftk on May 03 2007,11:56

My name is NOT Alice Wright.

And, you're right, Louis.  I can't believe someone would post a picture of me due to the fact that I have always wanted to remain anonymous and have stated that over and over in different forums.  

I don't think Jeremy would stoop this low, but I can't imagine who would other than LIZ.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 03 2007,11:58

FTK, you latest blog post notes  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take a gander at these two 30,000 year-old ancient artifacts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, I guess a 10,000 year old earth is out then?

And while it's not nice to be outed (AFAIK Alice Wright may or may not be FTK's real name, anybody can come up with the same from 10 seconds in google) somebody who knows FTK on a personal level has done this. So, who have you pissed off lately FTK? Don't blame these people for your transgressions!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you people seriously suck
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think you'll find that the person who posted that picture joined today, posted a single post (that picture) and we'll likely never hear from them again. So I fail to see how you can blame the other members of this forum. Unlike the other places you visit (UD,OW) anybody can post anything they like here without pre-approval. So look to your own house first!
Posted by: Gunthernacus on May 03 2007,12:07

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 02 2007,18:57)
In a < comment thread > filled with DaveScot's explanations about his height, the location of his truck and property, and descriptions of his neighbors...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading his post, I was reminded of the MP Inquisition - "This is uncle Tard at the front of the house.  And this is uncle Tard at the side of the house.  This is uncle Tard at the front of the house again, but you can just see the side of the house..."
       
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But they are trying to kill the birds, yes?  And you did teach them how to use the guns - how to aim, adjust for distance, lead a moving target?  If they only put out an eye, is that okay?
         
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
My husband is a stickler about the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the hubby was seriously pissed, but a stickler for the rules - so he sends the minors out to break the law.  Now, if they're caught, you just need a blank, I-can't-keep-track-of-the-kids-much-less-all-of-our-countless-guns stare to plead ignorance.



Perfect!
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on May 03 2007,12:14

I'm tellin' ya, FTK, it's not Liz's style. I know there's no love lost, but I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,12:14

Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,11:39)
Okay, you people seriously suck.  So much for anonymity.  Good grief.  

But, that picture is hideous.

These aren't much better, but they are all I have sitting on my desk.  They're from last Thanksgiving.

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/blog-post.html >

Never said I was good lookin‘.  Just said I was tall and blond, and that I am.

Jeremy/Jack/Liz are dead...

Oh, btw, if some wacko lurker decides to track me down, we have 2 dogs, countless guns and tight security.  Just FYI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good lord, where do you ID types get this idea that 'Darwinists' are all a bunch of bloodthirsty stalkers who have to be kept at bay with guns and dogs?? What kind of circles do you guys travel in?

And yes, please to remember, I had nothing whatsoever to do with your unmasking, 'mkay?

BTW, that link doesn't work. No pictures show up.

Hey, Richard Dave said you were a MILF, that's supposed to be a compliment! :p

(revised)
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,12:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Richard said you were a MILF, that's supposed to be a compliment!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



RICHARD? I THOUGHT THAT WAS ME! dt
Posted by: Louis on May 03 2007,12:21

For the record I've reported the original "Really4kids" post to Steve and Wes. As I've said identifying people who want to remain anonymous is beyond the pale in my opinion. Posting someone's picture or details without/against their consent is not a good precedent to set, nor is it civil.

If I'd stuck Ftk's picture into a post I'd edit it out as a gesture of goodwill. Maybe people will disagree with me and argue that Ftk, as a self promoting "public" figure, is fair game. I don't think this is the case.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,12:23

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 03 2007,12:14)
I'm tellin' ya, FTK, it's not Liz's style. I know there's no love lost, but I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CJ, I'm confused, how do you know FTK's so-called friends?
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,12:28

Quote (Louis @ May 03 2007,20:21)
For the record I've reported the original "Really4kids" post to Steve and Wes. As I've said identifying people who want to remain anonymous is beyond the pale in my opinion. Posting someone's picture or details without/against their consent is not a good precedent to set, nor is it civil.

If I'd stuck Ftk's picture into a post I'd edit it out as a gesture of goodwill. Maybe people will disagree with me and argue that Ftk, as a self promoting "public" figure, is fair game. I don't think this is the case.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well she could have denied it......oh that's right she already did, so that's not her...er Alice...right FTK?

I have to say you are far, far too hard on yourself.

You are much better looking than DT. <ok that was unfair, seriously tho' loosen up>
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on May 03 2007,12:32

They're hardly friends. FTK and I go way back from the Kansas Citizens for Science discussion forums. She was the most prominent dissenting poster for several years there.

All the people we're talking about are known to me only on-line. But I think you can get a pretty good sense of character from someone's on-line behavior, especially over a time-span of years. I'm sure it's a former nemesis of hers from that arena (she has more than a few), but not one of FTK's named suspects.

I have no particular information on this. I base my judgement on my sense of character only.
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,12:40

Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,20:28)
Hmmm...the link works for me:

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/blog-post.html >

Doesn't that work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That main picture links to your local hard drive, so you are the only person  on the interwebs who can see it.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/All%20Users/Documents/My%20Pictures/Picture.jpg
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



kind of ironic actually.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,12:41

Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,12:28)
Hmmm...the link works for me:

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/blog-post.html >

Doesn't that work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The page opens but the photos don't appear.

I tried it in both Safari and Explorer, to no avail.
Posted by: Ftk on May 03 2007,12:42

Connor,

Liz would do it.  

I can't imagine Jack or Jeremy doing it, and it's not anyone I know personally because the people I know aren't interested enough in this debate to follow me over to this forum.  Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, I don't have any enemies in the real world.  I've always been well liked.  

It's definently someone from KCFS.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on May 03 2007,12:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's definently someone from KCFS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agree.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz would do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disagree.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 03 2007,12:49

ALRIGHT SHUT UP AND LISTEN BECUASE I'M TALKIN ABOUT STALKIN.


DONT BOTHER TRYING TO FIND ME BECAUSE I LIVE IN A DIRIGIBLE. ITS POWERED BY THE HOT AIR COMMING FROM THIS HOMO BORED. HAR HAR!

IF YOU DO FIND ME I HAVE 3 COMPANIES OF SAS (SUPER ARMY SOLDIERS) AND SOME TANKS AND SOME DOGS BREAD TO DETECT KNOW MORALS AKA ATHIESTS AND HUNT THEN DOWN AND EAT THEY'RE SPLEENS.


I ALSO MADE THIS DEATH ROBOT MYSELF:





DELL ARE VERY INTERSETED, AS ARE CYBERDINE SYSTEMS.


PS I'M NOT SCRAED.
Posted by: k.e on May 03 2007,12:50

Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,20:42)
Connor,

Liz would do it.  

I can't imagine Jack or Jeremy doing it, and it's not anyone I know personally because the people I know aren't interested enough in this debate to follow me over to this forum.  Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, I don't have any enemies in the real world.  I've always been well liked.  

It's definently someone from KCFS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah yeah mirror mirror on the wall.

I'm fantastic and a legend too, oh did I tell you?Everybody loves me.

I LOVE YOU TO, HOMO.-dt
Posted by: Louis on May 03 2007,12:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SAS (SUPER ARMY SOLDIERS)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh the Extras is hilarious.

Have you seen the second series, Rich? It's better than the first.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 03 2007,12:58

Incidentally, before today the only person I knew of in the whole ID/evoluition wars scene who ever went around deliberately unmasking people was one David Scott Springer of Texas.

Just ask Jujuquisp. Then stand back.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 03 2007,12:59

Quote (Louis @ May 03 2007,12:53)