Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: FTK Research Thread started by Arden Chatfield


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 10 2007,02:04

Okay, since I blew the joke Blipey set up for me, here's my chance to set things right.

You may recall that 'last spring', our favorite wife and concerned mother from Topeka wrote this:

 

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

Posted: 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[my boldfacing]

Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,08:08

(sound of crickets chirping)
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,08:28

No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.
Posted by: deejay on June 10 2007,08:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

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



Ftk, my initial urge for a response to this quote was to call dibs on using it in my sig.  I thought that might be a little mean, so instead I'll ask whether you want a constructive answer.
Posted by: JonF on June 10 2007,09:02

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,09:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I don't care.  It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate.  Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,10:06

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh.

My reason for wanting you to "list them" is as follows.

Lets assume for a moment you are arguing a point such as "the earth is 10,000 years old". Somebody shows you a peer-reviewed paper that lays out the case for an old earth.

Your reaction would be to dispute that the paper is correct, however your only mechanism to do that (as a self-confessed ignoramus) would simply be to declare that it's not correct because it's incompatible with your special book.

That, FTK, is comedy gold.

So, I guess at some point somebody will have to dig in that forum and find a paper you dispute. Then we can have a nice old fireside chat about it here, and your reasons for disbelieving it will be marshmallows to roast on the fire. Yum Yum.
Posted by: skeptic on June 10 2007,10:11

Guys, the point is not the journals but the language contained in them...

wait a minute, why am I wasting my breath.

Nevermind, carry on.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,10:11

Quote (JonF @ June 10 2007,09:02)
 It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate.  Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps there were too many big words, and not enough "thou shalt nots".

Or perhaps, like the apocryphal Muslims who burned the Library of Alexandria, FTK figures that either a scientific paper opposes the Bible, in which case it is evil, or it supports the Bible, in which case it is superfluous.

Fundies are all alike, no matter what stripe they are.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,10:15

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, maybe because you're utterly totally absolutely one-thousand-percent pig-ignorant about every single scientific topic that you presume to yammer about . . . . ?

After all, anyone who can't make up their mind whether the earth is billions of years old, or just thousands of years old, never got past seventh-grade earth science, much less understood any peer-reviewed geological papers.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,10:16

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No shit.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 10 2007,10:19

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not believe that you have read (with comprehension) peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The language is too obscure for a lay-person to have a clue what they are reading.

Your writing style gives away the position that you are not trained in any biology related science (just like me).

The reason people "care" is that you made a claim to have read "peer reviewed papers" in a way that implied that you could understand them and be capable of criticising them.
Posted by: Louis on June 10 2007,10:49

****ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MEAN AT ALL****

FTK,

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

That is not an insult. AFAIK (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) you didn't do a science degree (which is the bare minimum, not the be all and end all) and are not a working scientist.

Confession of geekdom time: As a 13 year old kid, I subscribed to Nature. I begged my parents to pay for a subscription for my birthday and they were kind enough to do so. I read as much of it as I could, but let's be blunt, I didn't understand a great deal. I still have those old Natures from the 80's and early 90's and NOW go back and read and understand them. Sure I picked up a few interesting things and I learned a lot, but the vast majority of it was way over my head.

I'm not comparing you to my 13 year old self in any other sense than this: without the basic knowledge, why should you expect to pick up a journal and NOT find many things way above your head? This doesn't mean you won't get some stuff, any intelligent, interested adult should be able to.

A formal education is just ONE path to knowledge and ability in science, this is true. There are many gifted amateurs who have not got letters after their name (and many blithering idiots WITH letters after there name) and who understand, make contributions and do good science. These individuals are a tiny minority though, and those that do make the public eye as it were are justifiably famous for their efforts.

The VAST majority of people who are knowledgeable about science have actually done some in a formal sense. That's not an indoctrination programme (science doesn't proceed by indoctrination, in fact indoctrination is the antithesis of science) it's a humble appreciation of the simple fact that there is a lot of very technical stuff to learn and tricky mechanisms and methods to master.

Peer reviewed papers. In my office at home I have two identical bookshelves which measure 1.5m wide by 2m tall. They are full of science books. Not popular science books (different shelves. I have a lot of books!), not just textbooks from my undergrad days (although just over half of one is textbooks), but technical books summarising fields of research. I've read the lot and made notes, all at least twice, most more. I have two 4 drawer filing cabinets full to over flowing with printed out papers, articles, reviews, communications etc all from the primary literature, I bought a third cabinet this weekend to put the over flow in. All papers are catalogued and in a database on my home PC. I have over 20 GB of PDF files (something I have recently started doing instead of print out, although I prefer to read things on paper) each file in an individual article (some contain fancy graphics! So it sounds larger than it is. It's not all pure text!) stored on this PC and it is growing at an alarming rate. All read, all catalogued. I personally subscribe to four journals, it costs me about £2k a year and these along with my old teen Nature subscription occupies another large book case.  In a month I'll need to buy another. My wife does go spastic at the amount of books etc I have. This is just the stuff I have AT HOME. You don't even want to know what I have at work (smaller amounts of books, at least equal amounts of journals). I set aside as a combination of my personal time and some work time between 10 and 12 hours per week in which I read the primary chemistry literature. Some journals are published once a week, some once a fortnight, some once a month etc. I read roughly 25 journals regularly and at least 10 of those are weekly. Any articles I like I keep and catalogue for reference.

I don't say this to show off or intimidate you. I say this merely to give you an idea of what a decade of being a professional scientist involves in terms of papers read. "I've read peer reviewed journals" to me is like saying "I breath". It's not really that exciting. Of course anyone interested in science reads journals, the question is do you understand what you're reading. Without an understanding of the basics  the majority of any journal, or even any article is very likely to whistle straight past you. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

So whilst it's great fun to bloviate on blogs and message boards it's not really a substitute for actual knowledge or actual talent or actual research or actual work....which reminds me, my new Angewante Chemie It Ed came on Friday and I haven't read it yet!.

Louis
Posted by: PennyBright on June 10 2007,10:52



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

Posted: 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.


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



I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read -  only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here.  IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper?    That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.  

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc)  would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected.   And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over,  as FtK is doing here.  Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process,  they would simply be ignored.
Posted by: Louis on June 10 2007,10:57

Penny,

Bingo.

Louis

P.S. Great sig.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 10 2007,11:06

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,10:52)
 

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

Posted: 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.


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



I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read -  only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here.  IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper?    That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.  

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc)  would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected.   And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over,  as FtK is doing here.  Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process,  they would simply be ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,11:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 10 2007,11:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can't name even one?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We don't really need to give an explicit answer to this question, do we?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, basically, your answer this time is a combination of "I don't have to tell you", with a dash of "I've already explained that elsewhere".

Okay, I think I can see three possible explanations here, all of them pretty grim:

a) you have 'read' articles, but you didn't understand most of them, mentally rejected them, and they made so little of an impression on you, you really can't name any of them.

b) you know perfectly well what articles you read, but you don't want to explain them or explain why you disagree with them.

c) you simply haven't read any peer-reviewed articles.


You know, Christians like yourself make a much better impression on the public when they're actually, you know, honest.
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,11:36

Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.
Posted by: PennyBright on June 10 2007,11:39

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.  Better you then me.  I've been banging my brain against Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos for about two years now, trying to make sense of it.

Louis - thanks!  I'm fond of Shakespeare,  even reputedly.  ;)
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,11:46

Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

I'd have to pick A.  I read them at the time because they were posted to coorespond with something being discussed.  I certainly don't remember the titles or authors of any of them.

Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.  The science room is obviously out, and the churches aren't going to touch the subject with a ten foot pool except to say that, yes, a designer exists.  

sigh...
Posted by: blipey on June 10 2007,11:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then perhaps you should actually take a class.  You may recall that someone once told you (I hope) that class was for attending and learning things.  Class is for asking questions.  Class is for participation, for comprehension.  Things that directly bear on education and, yes, what is best for the kids.

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

This place will still be here after it closes, I want you to prove me wrong.
Posted by: deejay on June 10 2007,11:48

From Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If we make the very generous assumption that you have indeed read any original peer-reviewed literature, then this statement is about as clear an indication as any that you understood none of it.
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,12:00

Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 10 2007,12:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love you Blipey
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh oh. Do Richard and Lenny know? :O
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 10 2007,12:03

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true. And if you want to read speculation, I have a copy of "Pandas", as well as a copy of the Bob Jones University textbooks "Biology for Christian Schools". Please give us an example of any unwarranted speculation in Campbell, Reese and Simon, and I'll easily match you one-for-one from Pandas or the other books. Thanks.

Furthermore, given that there are literally hundreds of scientific papers backing up every single sentence in an intro-level college biology texttbook, how, exactly, do you expect the authors to give all the evidence for the things that you label "speculation"? In what other college-level intro textbooks do the authors provide all of the evidence for their sentences?

Finally, intro-level college biology textbooks must cover a lot of material, and there is really no way to cover any topic in any detail. That's why it's an introductory book, BTW. If you want the detail, you take other classes with other more specialized textbooks. Then you take other classes which use (and critique) the primary literature on which this is all based. Then you will understand the sheer silliness of your criticisms of this introductory level textbook. It has nothing to do with the bar and social life expectations of college freshmen; it has a lot to do with the reality of science, and how it is done, and how it is taught.
Posted by: deejay on June 10 2007,12:07

Ftk:

Your response came up as I worked on mine.  Thank you for making the concession you didn't understand what you read.  It's a step.

Where we are now is dealing with a question Steve posed on your old thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The general question is, 'how do you get someone who doesn't know the first thing about science, to understand that a particular pseudoscience they like isn't science?'. FtK proves on a daily basis that we haven't found the answer to that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you don't understand how science works, you are unfortunately incapable of making a competent comparison between ID and science.  Do you realize this?  Again, I appreciate the fact that you concede gaps in your knowledge.  Do you concede this point as well?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,12:16

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, same. I'm going to damm well learn all the math I need to complete that book.
Posted by: Louis on June 10 2007,12:19

FTK,

Blind? Or perhaps didn't know because I haven't read that post. I DO miss things and I certainly don't read every post. Ahhh the paranoid tendency to see hostility and persecution where none exists (even when a disclaimer is used!), it smells so....pathetic. But this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And this



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are not going unremarked upon.

1) No evolutionary biology is not speculation. You've been sold a lie if that's what you believe. It is also not taught dogmatically, there is no dogma to teach.

What IS taught is the best set of explanations we have based on the best facts we have. Sorry if your beliefs conflict with reality to such and extent that you have to deny the facts.

IDC is NOT science, never has been, never will be. The data simply does not support it at all. IDC is demonstrably old wine in new bottles. Antique ideas about teleology in nature that weren't very good when they were invented and are contradicted by every single thing we know about the universe. The reason IDC is not taught as some alternative to evolutionary biology is because it is not an alternative to evolutionary biology, it is wishful thinking coloured with jargon words to make it sound sciencey to the rubes who buy Dembski et al's books. It's a con. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.

You pride yourself on an open mind (something for which no evidence can yet be found) then do what any good scholar would do...go and find out. Ask a prof at a local uni, phone them up, email them, ask for a reading list. You'll find hundreds of people willing to help. Pay an impoverished post grad a tutorial fee ($20 or whatever it is, it will be small) for an hour's tutorial on things you don't understand (they'll be so flattered you could probably get it for free!). Instead of wringing your hands and crying "why why why how" and "it's all speculation" (when it so isn't) go an find out. Take the time you waste on line and actually go and use it productively.

A college textbook will have references in it, GET THEM. I cannot stress this enough. When you get those references look at the references section of them and get THOSE references. Keep going until you can't go any further. It takes time, it costs money, it takes a lot of effort. We call it "researching the primary literature" and it's a good idea to do this BEFORE you even get to do basic research.

I say all this but then:

2) You think all college students are like you? Mindlessly parroting facts to get back to the bar and to obtain a passing grade? You think this is how science works? Oh purleeez! It's the "Don't think, accept" attitude that typifies poor (read: non-existent) scholarship. I positively HATED this trite drivel when at school and university and yes I regularly blasted people who espoused it. This is the antithesis of the scientific endeavour, the opposite of research and the very epitome of shoddy anti-intellectual, incurious, shallow, "cargo-cult" style pseudo thought. It's the most contemptible thing I have seen you express, and sister, that says a lot given the crap you spout.

You will never, can never understand even the basics of science with an attitude to scholarship like this. Oh sure, you can parrot things back to people but that does not constitute either learning, thought, understanding or scholarship. The opposite is true: Don't accept, THINK.

Louis
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 10 2007,12:26

Some time back, on the KCFS forum, I asked FtK a relatively simple question.  It had to do with radiometric dating, which she doesn't  trust, or rejects outright. I wanted to know why she poo-pooed radiometric dating, but accepted uncritically all of the rest of nuclear physics.  I mean, she accepts that hydrogen bombs explode as predicted, and x-ray machines work as predicted, and any number of other commonplace manifestations of predictions in nuclear physics, but radiometric dating is no good.

She used her famous "I'm too busy but I'll get back to you" dodge, and said that her husband thought it was a case of comparing apples with oranges, but never gave an answer. How about it, FtK?  You've had a year or so to think about it now.  Why do you reject only the areas of science that conflict with your religious opinions, but accept the same science when there's no conflict (in your mind, at least)?

Edit: typo
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,12:29

FTK,
< >
< Atomic Models >
Which of the models (or propose another) would you approve of teaching to children?
Go visit the original page - it's got more info.

They taught me this one
< >

My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >< >
Hmm, speculation v's fact. Interesting.

Do you have any specific examples of rampant speculation? Like, something to back up your so far empty words? Or not? Just wondering.
Posted by: Louis on June 10 2007,12:36

I'm going to add my voice to the call for which bits of a college biology textbook are speculation.

Come on FTK, actually back up one of your assertions or simply admit that you can't. I don't mind which.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on June 10 2007,12:57

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave.  I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts.  However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.).

You miss the point of what he says repeatedly.  I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you.  I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says.

He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is.  And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do.  You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.

My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is.  My problem is two-fold:

1.  You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?).

2.  You pretend to know what science is.  Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot.  This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about.  If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology?

edit:  the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you".
Posted by: Louis on June 10 2007,13:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

Louis
Posted by: PennyBright on June 10 2007,13:12

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because you are making claims like this.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,13:12

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,13:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

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


ah, but you've gotta keep your options open right?
Later experiments could overturn the De Broglie atom model and we could be back to the billard ball model in no time. I mean, the earth could be 10,000 or could be millions of years old, right FTK? We should not discount one or teh other right?
:p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2007,13:14

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,13:12)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because you are making claims like this.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


precisely.

FTK, put up or shut up.

Except, don't shut up, it's far too funny!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 10 2007,13:49

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 10 2007,13:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,12:16)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, same. I'm going to damm well learn all the math I need to complete that book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good for you! I will probably just give up. I haven't got the time to learn. Too damned hard for me.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,14:35

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,14:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My, my, FTK --- does your massive martyr complex NEVER take a vacation?


(yawn)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,14:39

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
 I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the same reason that "the earth is round and revolves around the sun" is taught  . . . uh . . . "so dogmatically".

Sorry if that offends your religious opinions.

Perhaps you  . . . well . . .  need better religious opinions. Ones that don't actually deny reality.  

Any non-fundie church should be able to help you with that.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,14:44

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh-oh, getting a little miffed, FTK?  Finger itching to reach for that Banninator Button again, FTK? Don't like lots of people asking you questions that you don't want to hear, FTK?  

Gonna go storming out all in a huff (again), FTK?


"Boo hoo hoo, you're all MEAN to me!!!!!!!!  Sniffle, sob"

Grow up and deal with it.  Stop being such a goddamn whiney crybaby.  Or else go away, shut yourself up into a cloister somewhere, and don't venture out into the real world again.


Your massive martyr complex is old and boring.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,14:44

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,12:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love you Blipey
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh oh. Do Richard and Lenny know? :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't mind sharing.
Posted by: PennyBright on June 10 2007,14:52

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 10 2007,14:35)
Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!   Let's not go insulting uneducated housewives.

FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,15:27

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2007,10:11)
Guys, the point is not the journals but the language contained in them...

wait a minute, why am I wasting my breath.

Nevermind, carry on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i continually wonder the same thing.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,15:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you mean the one you said was far too basic for you?

denial...
Posted by: Ftk on June 10 2007,18:44

Blipey wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

1.  An evolutionist predicts a “novel idea” due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a “novel idea” due to common ~design~.

2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn’t make sense to me, and that may just be because I’m dense (have a ball with that one Lenny - make sure to post at least 15 separate comments to cover your response).  Or it could be that I don’t understand how evolution can predict which tree to tap without having researched and classified the trees by their similiarities and grouped them as such.  I don't know why one wouldn't try to group them with other trees that they share the most common traits with unless they believed that the similarities were due to common descent.  That's just a matter of organization and classification.

Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,19:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"evolutionists" long before darwin, you say?

do tell.

please, let's compare the various theories these evolutionists proposed in comparison to boilerplate creationist "theory", long before Darwin.

you start.

show me one comparison, pre-darwin, between a creationist representation and an evolutionary representation.

then we can walk through them step by step; see what the differences are.

good luck.

I suppose you might want to start by defining what the ehll you mean by "evolutionist" before you begin.

OTOH, that might curtail this discussion quite rapidly.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's just it.  a scientist doesn't work from a belief structure, but outwards from the actual evidence.

you're never gonna get that, are you?

*sigh*

and yet we will continue to try and explain it to you, over and over and over....

have YOU ever asked yourself why that is, when it's so blatantly obvious it's a complete waste of time for someone such as yourself?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 10 2007,19:16

I subscribe to Science.  (yea, me!)

I read nine peer-reviewed papers this week, two of which dealt with evolution.  On average I read about 5 peer-reviewed papers a week.

Now, before FtK jumps all over me with congratulations on my scholarship, I would say to her that the US Post Office will deliver Science to your mailbox every week.  Without fail.

So, plunk down your 90 bucks American and join the club!

Put out or shut up.  (Now, that didn't sound right.)
Posted by: Henry J on June 10 2007,19:20

Here's my 2 cents:

Nested hierarchy.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 10 2007,19:29

Two things:

1. FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.

2.



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

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?

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



All possible configurations of reality are compatible with the conjecture that a capricious, omnipotent entity wanted it that way. So there is no point is asking for evolutionary science to provide an explanation that is not available to a creationist; the "Omphalos" option covers all possibilities. But that is also precisely why evolutionary science is science, and antievolution isn't. Evolutionary science is constrained by the evidence; antievolution is not.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 10 2007,19:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a classic example of the kind of question that FTK will probably dodge. You can try making a thread solely about this question in order to force some kind of answer.
Posted by: JonF on June 10 2007,20:05

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,19:44)
1.  An evolutionist predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to common ~design~.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Several examples of the former have been given; nobody, including you, has come up with an example of the latter. That's because nobody can predict what an omnipotent Being, with capabilities and understandings far beyond ours, would do.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn&#8217;t make sense to me
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Several examples have been given. The fact that you don't understand them is your problem; you need far more education in the basics.  I'm sure many people would be glad to help if you showed some indication of honest desire to learn.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,21:47

Hey FTK, dolphins and fish live in the same environment, and don't have the same genes.

Why not?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 10 2007,21:48

Speaking of "common design", FTK:  Chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA and a "common design".

Humans are, according to creationists, designed in the image of God.

Does that mean, therefore, that God is 98% chimpanzee?
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 10 2007,22:53

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,08:49)
****ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MEAN AT ALL****

FTK,

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing. By most people's standards, I am almost completely uneducated. I.e., I have a diploma from an American high school. I took three science classes in four years of high school (biology, chemistry, and physics—I couldn't fit a science class into my weird freshman year schedule). I took a science class in seventh and eighth grade—a basic biology course and a basic physical science course. That's it in terms of formal education in the sciences.

And I suck at math.

Nevertheless, I have had a life-long fascination with the sciences. I'm interested primarily in physics, astronomy, and cosmology, but after dealing with creationist cranks for the last two years or so, I've also become much more interested in geology, biology, genetics, zoology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and cladistics.

I've read a lot of popular scientific works over the years. I've read (twice, beginning to end) A Brief History of Time. I have Peeble's Principles of Physical Cosmology, and have read it, but the damned thing is bristling with mathematical formulae, my understanding of which is slightly better than a cocker spaniel's. I've read most of Dawkins' books on zoology and evolution other than The Selfish Gene (it's on my list). I've read Michio Kaku, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, and, of course, On the Origin of Species. I've subscribed to Scientific American since 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school (and the cover story was about Benoit Mandelbrot and fractal geometry).

I can't pretend to have understood more than a fraction of this stuff. And this is the popular literature. I probably couldn't understand more than 5% of the actual peer-reviewed primary literature even in the fields I'm currently most interested in, e.g., cladistics, physical anthropology, zoology, and paleontology.

Therefore, when people (young-earth creationists) try to impress me with the claim that they've read peer-reviewed papers, but know nothing about nested hierarchies, radiometric dating techniques and the calibration methods thereof, undirected mutation and natural selection, common descent with modification, or express doubt about the evidence for an earth billions of years old, I laugh at them and make fun of them.

There is simply no way anyone who has even the most nodding acquaintance with fields as diverse as geology, astronomy, zoology, paleontology, or physics could possibly doubt that the universe is tens of billions of years old, that the earth is billions of years old, that life has existed for billions of years, that all organisms that have ever lived are related by common descent with modification from one or a small number of common ancestors, and that biodiversity is entirely accounted for by relatively simple and reasonably well-understood mechanisms of evolution. There is simply no room for reasonable doubt on any of these matters, no matter how much creationists like to pretend otherwise.

A claim to have read primary literature, when one displays yawning gaps in knowledge, preposterously incorrect beliefs about what the standard theories even say, and doubts scientific findings that have been confirmed over and over again by hundreds of thousands of research papers is nothing but an ill-supported appeal to authority.

If you've read them, but haven't understood them, you're worse off than someone like me, who hasn't read them, but at least gets the fundamental concepts.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 10 2007,23:07

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,09:46)
Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's why, FTK. I want you to think long and hard about this, because it will really give you an idea of why ID is making no headway in the scientific community.

ID basically stands for the proposition that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore evolution at some level (somewhere from special creation of every organism that has ever lived, to merely a nudge by the divine finger every once in a while, to a nebulous front-loading argument where a designer—come on, we all know it's the Christian god—just sort of got the ball rolling), must have been driven by God some unnamed Intelligent Designer.

Now, here's your assignment: I want you to try to imagine an observation or series of observations that would falsify—i.e., make it extremely unlikely to be true—Intelligent Design "theory."

While not the last word in "demarcation criteria"—separating science from non-science—falsification is an important criterion. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it's a pretty safe bet that it ain't science. And I've never heard a single ID advocate ever come up with an example of an observation or series of observations that would definitively falsify ID.

(hint: a statement on the level of "proof that evolution happens" won't cut it. First, that's not an observation, and second, unguided evolution will not falsify ID. Think about it a bit and you'll see why.)

Now, if you need any help with this, I'll give an example of an observation or series of observations that would falsify the Theory of Evolution, or at minimum its most central precept: common descent with modification of all life from one or a small number of common ancestors. Hell, I can give you a < whole bunch of them. >

But if you cannot, despite wracking your brains for two weeks, come up with an observation that would falsify Intelligent Design, don't feel bad. No one else, proponent or opponent of ID, has been able to come up with one either.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 10 2007,23:23

Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 10 2007,23:40

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,21:23)
Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave's been AFK since yesterday (I think BWE scared the crap out of him in his < formal debate on dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating >), so I got bored.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:46

have you seen Deadman return?
Posted by: someotherguy on June 10 2007,23:51

AFDave, it seems, has migrated to < IIDB >.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 10 2007,23:54

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,00:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Goofy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.

he might have gotten busy getting ready to make the jump to NZ, but something seems not quite right.
Posted by: Louis on June 11 2007,05:57

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).
Posted by: Louis on June 11 2007,06:03

The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
Posted by: deejay on June 11 2007,11:55

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,05:57)
 
Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well spoken, Penny and Louis
Posted by: blipey on June 11 2007,12:47

Excellent.  I will try to answer your questions, Ftk.  Now, I am no biologist, just an actor, but I'm going to explain this in my own words, without linking to anything.  You should try this once in a while--I'm not poking at you, here.  But if you write posts and comments in your own words and actually address the issues you'll find two things happen:

1.  Your brain engages and you start to think critically about the issues.

2.  You reveal your level of understanding of the issues.  At this point, other people can step in and help you more easily because they know the specifics of where to start.  This will now be seen as the more knowledgeable people here correct my following comment.

[QUOTE]Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

Now, an evolutionist, working from common descent, notices that there are similarities between whales and hippos (not something that is apparent at first thought, perhaps).  Continuing to research this, they find morphological similarities between the two that add credence to CD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The key here is understanding of the classification system--the why.  A creationist can say with confidence that "these things are similar, I have looked at them".  Now he asks why.  His answer is that the Designer made them that way.  Now, did the designer:

1.  use similar parts to make their bodies look the same, but their organs are arranged differently?
2.  use similar parts to make their immune systems work similarly, but their body plans are completely dissimilar?
3.  come up with a completely new way to provide a similar function?  what is the Designer's goal--the same parts?  the same ends?  how do we know?

The theory of common design requires us to know what the purpose of the Designer is.  This is something that IDers say cannot be done.  If it cannot be done, how can we possibly use the theory of common design?  If the Designer is unknown and unknowable, the theory of common design is useless from the get-go.

Now, the theory of common descent allows us to structure the plethora of living things into a knowable order.  Using this knowable order we can predict traits, proteins, and abilities that things in this order may have by comparing them to other things that have a common ancestor.

A common design theory doesn't let us know what the commonality might be.  We simply can't know before hand, unless we steal the blueprints from the designer.  We only know what the similarity is AFTER finding it.

A common descent theory allows us to say "hey, we might find this sort of thing here, because other things that are close to it in the hierarchy also have it.  We predict what we might find BEFORE looking for it, by an educated guess, not blind guessing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.  Sometimes he will be wrong, but he has a much better chance of being right than a creationist operating from a notion of common design.  By looking up the hierarchy, he can make educated guesses as to what he will find as he works his way down the hierachy--BEFORE observing the trees.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 11 2007,12:55

Quote (blipey @ June 11 2007,12:47)
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As supplemental reading associated with this particular thought, you might look at a previous ATBC thread that featured a sporadic and short lived appearance by a bona fide Fellow of the Discovery Institute.  I present to you, < Cornelius Hunter. >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,13:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



actually, Lamarck could be considered someone who produced theories to explain evolution.

rather I was more interested in seeing what she thought an "evolutionist" actually was, and to see where she thought theories to explain evolution existed LONG before Darwin.

secondarily, even these theories that existed shortly before and during Darwin are FAR different than the proposals of creationists.

thirdly, I was hoping she would actually see that the proposals of creationists have NOT changed since "Long before Darwin", and why that is so.

The reason i bother to explain this is that it's extremely unlikely she would have ever bothered to explore her own statement for veracity anyway.

uneducable, indeed.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 11 2007,19:52

My $.02:

This is a link to an easy to read, easy to understand basic evolution site developed at Berkeley.

I like to look at pictures, so this is perfect for me, and it may even help others that are interested in learing how evo really works.

< http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html >

Once we get past the basics, then we can go on to a more meaningful discussion of why ID is NOT science.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,19:56

yeah, the paleo guys at Berkeley started that a few years after I left.

lots of good resources there.

I think PT also provides a link to that site, under the "evolution resources" tab.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 11 2007,20:44

The Berkeley UCMP "Understanding Evolution" site was developed with NCSE as a consulting partner.

I think the UCMP is/was being sued over that. I'll have to ask someone how that is going.
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,20:48

What's the suit about?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,20:54

ditto steve's question.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 11 2007,21:04

Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a < dismissal in 2006 >, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.
Posted by: don_quixote on June 11 2007,21:08

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,06:03)
The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, boy. Tell me about it. I've been commenting there for the past few months, and it's got to the stage where I've pretty much had enough.

The final straw was this thread by Bodhi:

< http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16655 >

RD.net calls itself a "clear-thinking oasis", but not only do they allow people like Bodhi to post brainless drivel, but the moderators threaten anyone who understandably ridicules such tard with a ban!

They allow certifiable morons to shit in the water source and defile the coconuts, rather than telling them to disappear back into the desert. Some oasis.


Although I don't comment here very often, I do read the threads most days, and I have to say, Wes and Steve's moderation is damned good.

And not only is this a great oasis of reasoned thought, but also of great humour. Keep it up guys. It's very much appreciated.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,21:17

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2007,21:04)
Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a < dismissal in 2006 >, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ah!

the way your first post was worded, for some reason i was thinking NCSE was suing for copyright infringement or something.

just more nutters suing berkeley then.

meh, nothing new there.

what would be really funny, is if those suing under the establishment clause asked the ACLU to help them.

heh.

but of course, since it clearly has nothing to do with the establishment clause, the ACLU would have refused.

but then, those filing suit likely knew that before they even filed it.

just being morons wanting to prove a non-existent point, most likely.

oh, wait, I just had an evil thought...

they should contact Larry Farfromsane to be on their legal team!
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,21:46

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 11 2007,00:54)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a much easier job than they do. I only have to be consistent with myself. That's hard enough. They have to be consistent with other moderators, which is much harder.
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,21:48

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 12 2007,01:46

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:00)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Goofy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He posted tonight on one of < Dave's many threads. > So he's still alive, and evidently was busy on some writing project.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 12 2007,02:14

thanks eric,

i'll try a bit harder to reach him.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 13 2007,08:52

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 13 2007,11:26

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 13 2007,11:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


seconded. FTK has repeated this claim so often that not to back it up is, well, just not on, ok?
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 13 2007,11:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!
Posted by: JohnW on June 13 2007,11:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 13 2007,11:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
 
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Black Hole Beer: Get it down, and you'll never get it up.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,13:29

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.
Posted by: stevestory on June 13 2007,13:40

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,14:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I remember once offering to send a creationist an old College Biology 101 textbook of mine, so he would at least switch from utterly ignorant wrong arguments to slightly informed wrong arguments. His response? "Why should I spend time reading that stuff when I can already refute all the science?"


Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 13 2007,13:48

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,19:49)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.

Cheers
Spags
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 13 2007,14:09

Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 13 2007,13:48)
Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.

Cheers
Spags
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello Spags and welcome to AtBc,

Ref. changing sides: For me the worst bit was realising that I had swallowed lies hook line and sinker. That was rather humiliating.

I hope that you enjoy your time here.

Dawkins site is very dissapointing. I find it hard to believe that he is aware of how bad it is. His books are way too enlightening for that to seem credible.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on June 13 2007,14:13

JohnW:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Black Hole Beer: Get it down, and you'll never get it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once you go Black, you ain't comin' back...

Hey, spags!  Hope we'll be seeing you again in a week or two over at dawkins.net!

I must say that your adieu post--er, you know, the one that "invited" your ban--was articulation at its most pointed!  The Dawkins' mods should've been requesting permission to use your verbiage as an example of creative insult...!
Posted by: stevestory on June 13 2007,14:16

Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 13 2007,14:58

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,12:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to AFDave's world!
Posted by: J-Dog on June 13 2007,14:59

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,14:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you please sign up at UD and get this post put up over there.  Please hurry....
Posted by: Henry J on June 13 2007,15:06

Re "Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea"

Maybe they should go to a store and get some of that Cling-Free stuff...
Posted by: blipey on June 15 2007,17:46

I was just noticing how far this thread was from the top.  For the life of me, I can't figure out what would cause that.  Hmmm.
Posted by: Louis on June 15 2007,17:50

FTK presents me with a dilemma. As a near eternal optimist I hope and long for her to actually make some sense.

As a realist, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion this ain't going to happen. What worries me is that fact genuinely saddens me. {sigh}

Oh well.

Louis
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 15 2007,17:54

Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,17:50)
FTK presents me with a dilemma. As a near eternal optimist I hope and long for her to actually make some sense.

As a realist, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion this ain't going to happen. What worries me is that fact genuinely saddens me. {sigh}

Oh well.

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


meh, it's become such a common occurrence, it doesn't really bother me much any more.

I'd be happy at the converse, though, as that would be truly UNexpected.
Posted by: Louis on June 15 2007,18:05

Unexpected, sure I agree. It would be fun though.

Louis
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 16 2007,17:38

Hi again Stephen, thanks for the welcome.

Yeah, the joy of realising how badly i'd been duped. For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it in a way which allowed me to bypass the full science battle: up to then it had been a "could be evo/ could be creo" kind of thing in my mind with me coming down on the creo side. I think I still held to theism for a few years after.

If I think about it the true vaccuity of YEC only really became apparent to me with AFDave's advent at RD. Until then I'd just gone with the "well we evolved, no big deal" thought.

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,20:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Couldn't agree less. If you're right you're right, even if everyone else thinks you're wrong, that just proves you're right. For example, when 146 out of 148 people say they're not convinced by your argument one iota, then the likeliest scenario and most parsimonious explanation has to be that they're wrong. Right? or am i missing something. I mean, all those competent creationist scientists can't all be wrong can they? After all, as christians they're commited to Teh Truthiness.

Cheers
Spags
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 16 2007,20:01

hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation  everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?

or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?

know what I'm talking about?

kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach.  or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.

I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?

oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.

do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?

not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.

would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?

thanks
Posted by: J-Dog on June 16 2007,20:44

Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 16 2007,21:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I think about it the true vaccuity of YEC only really became apparent to me with AFDave's advent at RD. Until then I'd just gone with the "well we evolved, no big deal" thought.

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



Yeah, I've never been able to fathom that mindset whereby creationists seem to get so personally offended by being evolved from apes. It's never bothered me in the slightest. If anything, I think it's kind of cool that we accomplished something that remarkable. But there's a certain type of Christianist that seems to think it's the biggest mortal insult imaginable. The same kind of simple-minded Christianist who thinks nontheists all suffer from some kind of 'moral relativism' that turns them into monsters with no moral compass, I guess.
Posted by: Henry J on June 16 2007,22:39

Re "seem to get so personally offended by being evolved from apes."

Yeah, I also wonder why and how somebody can think being offensive makes it wrong somehow.

Heck, if they're offended by relationship with apes, what about the (more distant) relationships with some other things, like bats, mice, lizards, frogs, fish, starfish, worms, sponges, fungi, or amoeba. (Listed in order of increasing "distance", unless I goofed.)

Course, being related can be a disadvantage when something else's disease manages to adapt to a new host. (Well, nobody said the conclusions of the ToE were necessarily pleasant.)

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 16 2007,23:13

Quote (Henry J @ June 16 2007,22:39)
Course, being related can be a disadvantage when something else's disease manages to adapt to a new host. (Well, nobody said the conclusions of the ToE were necessarily pleasant.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you don't have to be all that closely related for that. Influenza originally came from pigs, for example.

But you're right that we're not likely to catch any diseases from, say, horseshoe crabs.

Are we closer to bats than to mice?
Posted by: Henry J on June 17 2007,00:26

Re "Are we closer to bats than to mice? "

That's what < Tree of Life > says. Primates, tree shrews, bats, and flying lemurs are in one of the major divisions. Rabbits, rodents and elephant shrews are in another. (Regular shrews in a third.)

Henry
Posted by: nuytsia on June 17 2007,01:10

Quote (Henry J @ June 17 2007,00:26)
Re "Are we closer to bats than to mice? "

That's what < Tree of Life > says. Primates, tree shrews, bats, and flying lemurs are in one of the major divisions. Rabbits, rodents and elephant shrews are in another. (Regular shrews in a third.)

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


I think this paper (Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RDE, Beck RMD, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507-511.) recently revised all that. < Larry Moran > and < Mike Dunford > give overviews on the paper.

Very cool pdf available at the BBC.

Looks like Primates now lie closest to Lagomorphs and Rodents. Unless something newer has turned up? :-)
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 17 2007,02:10

Thanks for links, esp. Sandwalk and comments, Nuytsia
Posted by: ck1 on June 17 2007,09:21

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2007,21:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here it is:
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 17 2007,09:50

Quote (ck1 @ June 17 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2007,21:19)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here it is:
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, FtK should read that article. If she got all the way through it (which is an assumption I am not willing to make), and if she understood the biology of it (an assumption for which we have abundant contrary evidence), she might have a better idea why her hand-waving rationalizations and Gish-quoting re the icefish globin genes are pooh-poohed here.

It is hard to argue for special creation when confronted with the evidence outlined in that article. How about it, FtK?  Once you get past those other pesky questions about icefish etc., can you read this linked article and tell us your thoughts?
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 17 2007,10:06

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,02:01)
hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation  everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

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


Hi Ichthy,
for me it has to be a combination: confront the "movement" of ID/YEC, but each individal on the most appropriate basis. Confronting the YEC individual is only really worth it with the arrogant, thick skulled variety for whom facts/evidence have no relevance. People like AFDave (In my serious opinion) are only really de-convertable by full deprogramming: they have been brainwashed and are under the influence of mind control. For people like him maybe finding the hooks on this subject would be more appropriate, he aint budgin on evo until his eyes are opened to the methods of mind control. The difficulty is getting the person to recognise that they are a victim of this, but it can be done.

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


did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?

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

For me, definitely. There was no way, after reading the Max article that I could get away from it. I came across another article on the flood was well, amazing. It dealt with the maths and physics and I could see that it was impossible for the flood to have happened. Between the two it was evident that a) we iz apes, and b) da bibble is not rite.

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

or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?

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

Actally that's pretty close to how it happened. I was on an EX-JWs BB and my own "ministry" was in combatting cult mind-control (to me any sect which practiced heavy works based religion was a cult, though as an ex-JW it was my particular avenue). Someone posted links to both articles with very little comment at all. Max's intro hooked me because I had been involved in a plagiarism case at work and knew how we'd caught the perpetrator and proved it (deliberate errors). The argument was poignant to me for that reason.  

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

know what I'm talking about?

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

Yup. I think for me it was the absence of any real commentary which made it easy to click the links. The poster was an Ex-JW with whom i'd had some good discussions and a great laugh, therfore I think I trusted him so didn't really question whether or not to click.

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

kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach.  or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.

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

I need to have a read up on this stuff.

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

I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?

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

In the right circumstances, or when dealing with a particlar breed of fundie it is the only option on fora. Like I say, Dave could be deprogrammed IMHO, it just aint happening while he's in his comfort zone. I think the direct approach is useful at putting people like Dave off balance, which as we see can lead to some choice tard moments. The usefulness here is only to the wider argument, and of course to the cause of humour.

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

oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.

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

Ok,

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

do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?

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

It does carry some weight, since the reaonable deduction is that the person is considering the opposite viewpoint and recognising some validity to it. However, I've heard Dave acknowledge the appearance of age before, yet he's still to make the link.

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

not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.

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

No offence taken, I just hope I'm a useful resource.

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

would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?

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

Go ahead, wire me up and stick a colander on my head.

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

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome ;)

Cheers
Spags
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 17 2007,10:12

Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheers J-Dog, fire away.
Got any 12 yr old Laphroaig? I'll have two fingers with a little jug of distilled water.
Cheers
;)
Posted by: blipey on June 17 2007,10:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is hard to argue for special creation when confronted with the evidence outlined in that article. How about it, FtK?  Once you get past those other pesky questions about icefish etc., can you read this linked article and tell us your thoughts?

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



Let me translate that for you Ftk.  Alby really means "can you read this article and discuss the technical aspects of it and the specific problems you have with it"?

Please don't say things like "Creationists don't..." or "an evolutionary paradigm doesn't allow us..."

Stick to the points made in the paper, please.
Posted by: blipey on June 17 2007,13:17

Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 17 2007,10:12)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheers J-Dog, fire away.
Got any 12 yr old Laphroaig? I'll have two fingers with a little jug of distilled water.
Cheers
;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll find the scotch pours freely around here.  You may want to check out the libations thread.  Welcome aboard and I don't have any Laphroaig, but I do have: 21 yr Balvenie, 12 yr Madeira-wood Glenmorangie, and a pour or two of Ardbeg resting in my cabinet.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 17 2007,13:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I need to have a read up on this stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



thanks, spags.

I was going to say some, but really it is ALL the longest, most contentious threads on both PT and Pharyngula have essentially revolved around this issue in one form or another.

I'll try to dig up links to a few of them for you to pour through and see what various participants have been saying about the issue for the last few years.  I'll post them here (in this post) for you as I dig them up.

fair warning, some of them get quite nasty (as nasty as an AFDave thread)

:)

oh, and of course yours truly has mixed it up a few times in some of those threads, occasionally even barking loudly.

some of the issue gets touched on in the thread I mentioned that Nick set up for Marc Hausam:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/biblical_inerra.html >

but even more of it really gets addressed in the threads about Allan McNeill that appeared on PT a while back.
Posted by: Henry J on June 17 2007,18:49

Re "I think this paper (Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RDE, Beck RMD, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507-511.) recently revised all that."

Oh rats. I guess the Tree of Life site was based on best knowledge when it was written, and I reckon keeping a thing that large up to date is likely to be a major (and continuous) effort, but it is annoying to say something based on it and then find out otherwise. So bats and/or primates are shown in the wrong place there? And some months back, Lenny said they had turtles in the wrong place relative to the other orders of reptile (and reptiles are his specialty, iirc).

Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 17 2007,20:22

Quote (Henry J @ June 17 2007,16:49)
Oh rats. I guess the Tree of Life site was based on best knowledge when it was written, and I reckon keeping a thing that large up to date is likely to be a major (and continuous) effort, but it is annoying to say something based on it and then find out otherwise. So bats and/or primates are shown in the wrong place there? And some months back, Lenny said they had turtles in the wrong place relative to the other orders of reptile (and reptiles are his specialty, iirc).

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


If you stick with the "Consensus Phylogenetic Tree," you're probably safe:




Nothing here is likely to change any time soon. When you get out to crown groups, things get more controversial.
Posted by: khan on June 17 2007,20:48

Is there a time line for that chart?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 17 2007,21:34

What cowards! No mention of < slime molds > or < stromatolites >!
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 18 2007,01:16

Quote (khan @ June 17 2007,18:48)
Is there a time line for that chart?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not in the article it comes from, although most of those taxa appeared between 1 billion and 100 million years ago. There are a few exceptions (the earliest eukaryotes probably appeared more than a billion years ago), and cetartiodactyls and the hominids more recently than 100 million years ago).
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 18 2007,01:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 17 2007,19:34)
What cowards! No mention of < slime molds > or < stromatolites >!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, stromatolites are colonies of bacteria, right? And bacteria are there, way over on the left.
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 18 2007,13:15

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,19:30)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I need to have a read up on this stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



thanks, spags.

I was going to say some, but really it is ALL the longest, most contentious threads on both PT and Pharyngula have essentially revolved around this issue in one form or another.

I'll try to dig up links to a few of them for you to pour through and see what various participants have been saying about the issue for the last few years.  I'll post them here (in this post) for you as I dig them up.

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

If it seems worth it we could always consider a new thread I suppose... see how it flows for now.      

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

fair warning, some of them get quite nasty (as nasty as an AFDave thread)

:)

oh, and of course yours truly has mixed it up a few times in some of those threads, occasionally even barking loudly.

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

I know the feeling. There are certain problems inherent in the whole forum approach when dealing wth such contentious issues. Generally the believers which come forward onto the fora are of the entrenched variety: those who are most deeply involved in the intricacies of YEC pseudo-science. They have learned the language and applied the mental filters most successfully. They have a calling. Most likely they display a strong < RWA  personality (this book is a must read!) >  

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

some of the issue gets touched on in the thread I mentioned that Nick set up for Marc Hausam:
< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/biblical_inerra.html >

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

I've started reading it and I've noted the point that a willingness to recognize the "appearance of age" brings the double-think to the fore, and I would agree that there is a greater likelyhood of this person's cognitive dissonance becoming unbearable. If the issue was solely the evidence then the progression would be logical, but there are many other variables at work for the believer; their faith is reinforced and practiced, shepherded and governed through church and family.The deprogramming as to the interpretation of evidence requires alot more IMO, though the acceptance of some validity to the old-earth view is a strong point.    

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

but even more of it really gets addressed in the threads about Allan McNeill that appeared on PT a while back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm very interested in McNeill's "ID Course" experiment as his approach was novel AFAIK. What outcomes were there? I'd love to be able to hear from some of those who took part, and what McNeill himself thought of it. I would assume McNeill holds alot of respect for Sanford, so his approach is much more sympathetic/polite from what I've read.

I certainly haven't spent enought time at PT.

As it goes, I'm still learning to think! So thinking about this stuff wasn't really on the radar until AFDave came along. But heck, I've learned some excellent stuff since Dave dragged a few of you lot over there (to RD), so if there's anything I can bring to the table, maybe I oughta.

Cheers
spags
Posted by: blipey on June 18 2007,14:16

To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

< The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester. >  Some of the class's papers are up as well.
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 18 2007,14:34

Quote (blipey @ June 18 2007,20:16)
To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

< The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester. >  Some of the class's papers are up as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many thanks.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 18 2007,14:40

be careful, though, many of the more "vehement" posts were removed.

again, you should also see the discussion on PT we had with Allen after the course was finished.

I'm still of the opinion that there is NO evidence whatsoever that his approach was anything other than a course in reinforcement for both sides, and served as free advertising for the likes of ID supporters like Hannah.

example of how the course was played on by ID supporters:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html >

Indeed, looking this course is a good representation of the very issue I was asking you about.

take your time, though, there is a LOT there to chew on.

I'm still trying to locate the thread Pim Van Meurs put up aboout the course a few months back that garnered such a long thread.  if somebody else finds it before I do, feel free to post the link.

here's one of the threads:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html >

an I believe this is the one I was thinking of originally:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/our_innate_tend.html >

pay close attention to the claims those supporting the course were making as opposed to the actual evidence presented as to the course's efficacy.

oh, and IIRC, this is also a separate thread here on this topic here at ATBC as well (was a few months back).
I'll dredge it up to continue the discussion, if you wish.
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 18 2007,17:09

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,20:40)
be careful, though, many of the more "vehement" posts were removed.

again, you should also see the discussion on PT we had with Allen after the course was finished.

I'm still of the opinion that there is NO evidence whatsoever that his approach was anything other than a course in reinforcement for both sides, and served as free advertising for the likes of ID supporters like Hannah.

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

From what I've seen Hannah is a particularly strong example. She calls "insult" far too often in the face of reasonable questions. I was reading the CSI thread which really had me grinning. At least there's a formula offered (which is later qualified as only part of the overall - still not put forward - algebra)  

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

example of how the course was played on by ID supporters:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html >

Indeed, looking this course is a good representation of the very issue I was asking you about.

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

Bagged to hard drive, will digest.  

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


take your time, though, there is a LOT there to chew on.

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

Will do, alot of other reading going on atm.  

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


I'm still trying to locate the thread Pim Van Meurs put up aboout the course a few months back that garnered such a long thread.  if somebody else finds it before I do, feel free to post the link.

here's one of the threads:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html >

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

Cheers. I think that's the same link as above?

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


an I believe this is the one I was thinking of originally:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/our_innate_tend.html >

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

Ok, I'll read that one first.  

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


pay close attention to the claims those supporting the course were making as opposed to the actual evidence presented as to the course's efficacy.

oh, and IIRC, this is also a separate thread here on this topic here at ATBC as well (was a few months back).
I'll dredge it up to continue the discussion, if you wish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cheers again Ichthy...

alot to digest, I'm trying to follow alot of it but it gets hard to follow one thread of thought because of the huge number of fallacies and diversions which appear from point one in any creo-argument.

I see alot of "symmetry" claims: e.g. the evidence appears to support either view depending on your old-earth versus young-earth presumption. This is where the difficulty comes in: they simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as an "old-earth presumption", although there was once a "young-earth presumption" (which they themselves claim) until such time as the evidence invalidated it. I really think these guys should all be forced to take a basic philosophy course. Learning not to weasel around definitions, how to build a logical progression from a sound premise, in short, identifying logical fallacies, etc. It's done me the world of good.

Another point they really need help with is that in developing a timeline we must work backwards from today, following the evidence in progression back in time. It is not done from assuming some historic event (e.g. creation week) and working from that, which they (through supposed symmetry again) accuse "darwinists" of doing likewise (in order to retro-fit evil-ution).

I agree with your thoughts as to how the McNeill exercise has been used by IDists as just a further validation. This was predicted widely of course, based on the observed desperation of the ID/YEC community for "recognition" of any kind. You could call it a very emotionally insecure "theory".

There's alot to read. I've also downloaded the final papers from the Cornell blog, and will give them some time. I was pleased to see the article on "intentionality" as I think this is a key area in understanding consciousness, but also in understanding evolution of abstraction, pattern recognition and other traits, leading to language and mathematics for example. I would love to see how this can be dovetailed with genetics, and I think some success has already been acheived in relation to primates.

Anyways, thanks for all of that.

I think a preliminary comment would be that getting through to anyone with a cultic viewpoint is always difficult, particularly when they're in prozelytising mode. I recall my own behavours: not listening to an argument other than to home in on some point from which I can hang my next discussion. In short, not listening with a view to comprehension. This is because I already knew the truth.

In order to get out of the mind-control of JWs a large shove came in learning to question the authority of the leaders. Anything which obviously spoke to their character was hard to sidestep, and it tended to stay in the mind, naggingly.

That leads to another point: the more aggressive and mouthy the creo-bot becomes in conversation, the greater the dissonance they are experiencing. It pays to tie them down on one point, keep their feet to the fire, force them to face the dissonance. It's hard to do this in open fora. The formal debate can be a great opportunity to put the weaknesses of open forum out of the way and limit the input to two people. Another way, if only it could be made to work, is to limit the number of participants in a thread.

Either way, deprogramming is the key. It's much more than just having the science wrong. The creo doesn't even know how to think, the science is irrelevant. Trust in the authority of the "ministers" of ID/YEC is a foundation which needs to be worn down too.

In the end it has to come down to brainwashing: deconversion requires deprogramming, not science lessons.

Cheers
Spags
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 18 2007,17:38



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

In order to get out of the mind-control of JWs a large shove came in learning to question the authority of the leaders. Anything which obviously spoke to their character was hard to sidestep, and it tended to stay in the mind, naggingly.

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



Some folks on the IDC advocacy side get het up a bit when I mention that.

See my comment < here >.



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

If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ’s message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars. Of the three approaches, the last one requires the most preparation and care in delivery.

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


Posted by: stevestory on June 18 2007,17:47

And that's why Salvador's one of the best IDers from our point of view. But the need to believe creationism runs deep. I was surprised when even the people at Telic Thoughts--the least intellectually challenged of the ID folk--defended Salvador's recent quote mine of Darwin, the one where he chopped "As a child..." off a sentence to keep the reader in the dark.

Showing people the dishonesty of the IDers has worked at least once, though, on David Heddle, and possibly on Robert O'Brien too, but that's less clear, because O'Brien seems afraid to say too much.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 18 2007,17:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She calls "insult" far too often in the face of reasonable questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh my!

thanks for being one of the relatively few sane people who were able to see through Hanah right off the bat.

You might be surprised at how many reasonable folks (Allan included!;) are willing to let folks like Sal lie, over and over again, just because of some seemingly ridiculous need to bring a false sense of civility to the discussion.  (see any similarities, BTW? :) )

I do believe Allan himself has learned much from the aftermath of that, and how they treated him on UD.

at this point, though, I think if this thread has any meaning left, we probably should move further discussion to the thread that was created to actually discuss the course results.

now if i can only find it...

got it; i was a bit confused at first, because i forgot the thread is a continuation of a discussion we started before the course had actually started.  Most of the first page or two was mostly meant as a concerted effort at baiting some of the UDites over to the thread, in case it seems a little odd.  You can safely ignore that.  more substantive posts appear shortly thereafter.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....69;st=0 >
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 18 2007,18:34

Cheers Wes,
I think you hit the nail on the head.

The day I was mentally out of the JWs (though it took a while longer to become physically out) was the day my best friend and I looked at each other and said "they lied to us, the bastards!".

With the Watchtower Society we had reams of their published literature to go from. What we found (or rather, what had been pointed out to us) was how they quotemined their own out-of-print books to hide the true nature of their older teachings (which totally contradicted current belief). It was a "he who controls the present controls the past" example laid bare. Thankfully we had access to the out-of-print library and cross referenced for ourselves.

The creo-bot's trust in the authorities is definitely the key there too. And just like the WTS of JWs, the leaders of the ID cult have also printed themselves into a corner.

Altermeyer's < The Authoritarians > makes the point that the best way to communicate with the RWA is to find common ground. To them lying is often a bad thing, and it is something we can get a hook onto. Many members of most cults are simply misguided people looking for meaning. Most of these people hold the morality teachings of their religion in very high regard, so any unrefutable evidence of lying and duplicity on the part of their leaders will have a massive impact. Until they lose faith in their teachers they will continue to run back to them whenever the dissonance of worldview-contradicting evidence gets too great.

Note how the likes of AFDave appear to do a reboot occasionally, running off for a battery charge, preceded each and every time by greater and greater irrationality. By attacking the foundation (the ID scamsters) we remove the hiding place. Some (such as Dave) will run to the defence of these authorites, but those that don't get a double whammy; they also see the weasley mealey mouthed party apparatchiks - the Brownshirt zealots - in action.

I remember well the feelings I experienced during a similar time for me. Sitting amongst a JW convention of some 8,000 people in a soccer stadium and seeing a collection of faceless robots, an oppressed throng of bored, miserable people busy convincing themselves how happy they were to be there. The lone, sober, preaching voice on the platform, prescribing and pontificating unquestioned doctrines on life and death. What had, in previous years seemed a joyous, fulfilling weekend of "truth" now looked hollow, and felt painful.

I got up and left the stadium, drove to my friends, and watched the Grand Prix on TV with a beer.

A few days later the "Brownshirts" came to visit. Within one week I was an Ex-JW.

Cheers
Spags
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 18 2007,18:39

Sorry Ichthy, we crossed posts...
Ummm what's best from here, ask Steve to do the honours or just pick it up over there.
We've already gone two ways here anyway, the Cornell experience and general cultic IDism.

BTW, you've assumed I'm sane, and as you know, assumption makes an "ass" out of "umption" (and I think umption is an important concept not to be assed with).
:)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 19 2007,07:01

Well, now that I've been standing in the corner for a week for being mean to FTK, let's see how much, uh, science she discussed in my absence . . .

(looks around)

Ahhh.  None.


What a surprise.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: slpage on June 19 2007,11:03

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

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

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't really care, but if a person claims to have done something and it is later found out not to have happened, it says a bit about the person's integrity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And did you know that 400-level courses on molecular biology or parasitology or immunology use the same introductory texts?  its true!  And grad students?  Same intro level texts.  Its amazing, isn't it...

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


I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And do you ask the same questions of Walt Brown's assertions?

I know that you do not.  You accept the rants of creationists without question.  Hypocrite.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 19 2007,11:17

Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 19 2007,12:05

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
 
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
 
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHAT! FTK asked Albatrossity to father her child? ? ? ?  :O

Richard's gonna be pissed.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 19 2007,15:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,12:05)
WHAT! FTK asked Albatrossity to father her child? ? ? ?  :O

Richard's gonna be pissed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fortunately I found a spot with wireless access in Lovell (Wyoming) so that I can address this baseless accusation. It is absolutely untrue; unlike Richard, I have no "designs" re FtK.

I already have chicks of my own.



After today I will be e-incommunicado for several days, camping in the Bighorns (probably yet another source of envy for Richard...). I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.
Posted by: Richard Simons on June 19 2007,21:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

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


You mean she sometimes addresses questions! All I've ever seen has been fluff and avoidance mechanisms. I tend to think of her as like an Afdave without the courage to post what she actually 'thinks' of scientific matters. Yet she keeps coming back for more insults about how she consistently avoids answering. Odd behaviour.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 20 2007,20:23

Quote (Richard Simons @ June 19 2007,21:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

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


You mean she sometimes addresses questions! All I've ever seen has been fluff and avoidance mechanisms. I tend to think of her as like an Afdave without the courage to post what she actually 'thinks' of scientific matters. Yet she keeps coming back for more insults about how she consistently avoids answering. Odd behaviour.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Give the poor woman a chance, will you? It appears that the Pirahna Lady's latest diversionary ploy weekend party has now stretched out to Wednesday, so I'm sure that when the party does finally end, and she has a few days to recuperate, she'll be right back here avoiding questions as usual.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 20 2007,20:44

what's so funny is that she seems to be in a catch-22.

she will post blog entry after blog entry indicating how important the issue of materialism in the sciences is.

but won't spend any time to stop blogging and actually try to get a grasp on the actual theories and evidence involved.

then she will tell us that we take it far more seriously than she does, and so sees no need to spend time here.

then she spends time here to tell us how we are all wrong, but can't really say why.

then she goes back to post on her own blog about how important the issue of materialism in science is.

etc., etc.

it's a freaking scary schedule of projection and denial, played out in repeated fashion.

wait, maybe it's not that funny.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 20 2007,21:25

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 20 2007,20:23)
I'm sure that when the party does finally end, and she has a few days to recuperate, she'll be right back here avoiding questions as usual.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She won't come back now that I'm here again.  I'm mean to her, ya know.

Unless she stamps her foot, whines loudly, and gets her Banninator Button again by proxy . . . .
Posted by: slpage on June 21 2007,06:47

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

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


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh well jeepers thanks....
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 22 2007,19:24

I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2007,23:35

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 22 2007,19:24)
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FtK is trying very hard to ignore us...
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,05:24

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2007,23:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 22 2007,19:24)
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FtK is trying very hard to ignore us...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course she is, but if she ever comes back here, she'll always have these questions waiting just so we can remind her what a lying disingenuous person she is.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,09:30

I'll be back, but I've been reading...lots.  

I started to answer Wes's question, but decided to read through talkorigins section on transitionals (again) before I did, and then I went back to several books I have that clearly point out the numerous issues with missing links.  Then Behe's book came in the mail, and since I know he considers common descent viable, I thought I'd read more about his views on the subject.   I kinda got caught up in his book...it's really quite interesting.

So, I have about 5 books spread out in my bedroom that I keep bouncing back and forth to in the late evening.  

Oh, and my oldest had one heck of a ball game last night.  They are placed first in their league at the moment and the game last night was more exciting than watching the world series.  They won 16-14 in a real nail biter.  

So, I've BEEN BUSY, and haven't had time to put anything together.  Today we're going to the pool, so that pretty much screws my chances of putting anything together today unless I find some time this evening.

Sorry....summers are insane around here, but I plan on posting something about transitionals on my blog and I'll post it here as well.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,10:03

I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,10:27

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:30)
Then Behe's book came in the mail, and since I know he considers common descent viable, I thought I'd read more about his views on the subject.   I kinda got caught up in his book...it's really quite interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no need to take all this time, FtK.

Behe only approves of common descent because he has his atheist materialist blinders on, he was brainwashed by those textbooks which don't mention it's pure speculation, and he is afraid of publicly supporting ID out of fear that the methodolistical naturalists will assassinate him and burn down his house.

See, that wasn't hard, was it?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,10:54

Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,11:00

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

Start with < this link >.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 23 2007,11:29

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

Start with < this link >.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?

FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,11:32

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

Start with < this link >.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't find any.

I find some predictions that it says that evolution makes, and then asserts that they are not true, and I find some predictions of something called hydroplate theory, which I believe is something to do with the flood. Other than that I find no evidence for any predictions, which I find...odd, since they claim predictions have to be made.

Maybe I'm just not looking.

Oh, and by the way, I do not like how you assume that I will instantly dismiss everything without looking, my name is NOT Behe. If someone can produce a good case for ANYTHING then I will listen. I listen to the cases of people who's ideas are diametrically opposed to mine a lot, it's called discussion, but in order to consider these points of view I do require evidence, for which I have seen none even remotely presented for any biblical literalism.

If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 23 2007,11:53

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

Start with < this link >.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 23 2007,12:18

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 23 2007,11:53)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

Start with < this link >.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess would be that FTK doesn't want to believe in transitional fossils, yet she knows this admission wouldn't fly here, so she's either (a) trying to find some satisfyingly pseudoscientific article to cover some claim like "I still don't think their existence is proven one way or the other", or (b) creating a smoke screen of delaying in hopes that we'll get bored and quit asking her this question.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 23 2007,13:01

From the site FTK linked to
< http://www.creationscience.com >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 1:   Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water.50 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first made in 1980. Salt water appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)51
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 2:   Salty water will be found within cracks in granite, 5-10 miles below the earth’s surface (where surface water should not be able to penetrate).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 3:   The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate bridge will be found to be eroded into a V-shaped notch. (This prediction concerning the Bosporus and Dardanelles, first published in 1995, was confirmed in 1998.)63
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 4:    The Global Positioning System (GPS) measures plate velocities with ever increasing accuracy as data accumulates and equipment improves. Because the earth’s crust is shifting toward equilibrium, today’s plate velocities will be found to be very gradually decreasing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 5:   Fracture zones and axial and flank rifts will always be along lines of high magnetic intensity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 6:   The magnetic intensity above hydrothermal vents slowly increases because the rock below, fractured since the flood a few thousand years ago, is cooling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 7:   A 10-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few miles under the western Pacific floor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 8:   Fossils of land animals, not just shallow-water plant fossils, will be found in and near trenches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 9:   Precise measurements of the center of the western Pacific floor will show it is rising relative to the center of the earth, because plates are still shifting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yada yada
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 20:   Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normally in ice bubbles formed today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 21:   Dirt and organic particles in rock ice will closely resemble those in the overlying muck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 22:   One should not find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses.146
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 23:   Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. [Page 89 describes blind testing.] Contamination by groundwater will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth’s body with different water-absorbing characteristics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 39:   Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 89.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yawn. But 41 is a doozy!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PREDICTION 41:   Bacteria will be found on Mars. Their DNA will be similar to, but not identical with, Earth’s bacteria. Furthermore, isotopes of the carbon in Mars’ methane will show the carbon’s biological origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyway, this is the same website that brought us
[/URL]
So thanks for that chuckle already!
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,13:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're mind is already set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,13:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



holy crap.

is she a baraminologist too???

she seems to be regressing.

fascinating.
Posted by: deejay on June 23 2007,15:12

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,13:24)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're mind is already set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or possessive pronouns for that matter?
Posted by: Henry J on June 23 2007,15:48

Re "unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types."

Funny, I thought that's what the word "transitional" meant.

Also: of course the transitional status of any given sample should be questioned, and they have been. (to the extent that some claimed transitionals have been thrown out.)

--------

Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

--------

oldman...,
How many of those PREDICTIONs would be inconsistent with current understanding of the relevant subjects?

(And should I ask whether they presented actual logic about how their "model" implied that those things should be found?)

Henry
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,17:01

Quote (Henry J @ June 23 2007,15:48)
Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I know, I should just take it on faith, right?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,17:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AIG has some interesting information to consider just like other creationists and evolutionists.  I'm not sure what you mean by “if only we have eyes to see”.  If you’re referring to having to be a bible believing Christian to see, I have no idea if that is a problem or not.  I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.  In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  I think the facts probably lie somewhere in the middle.  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Well, sweetie, I’ve tried to explain that I’ve been reading a lot on this subject and wanted to be more explicit with my response, but everyone is so terribly impatient and said that I didn’t need to take so much time.  I still plan to write something up for my blog, but I’m really enjoying just taking my time and reading about a lot of this stuff again.  It’s terribly interesting.

Ian, Oldman listed some of the predictions for you, and I assure you that Walt’s theory offers everything that you had questions about, but it’s quite indepth and if for no other reason than just for kicks, you should consider reading the book.  The entire thing is on line, but the book makes it easier to page back and forth between different topics.  One doesn’t have to agree everything that Brown puts forth, but he certainly makes you think before blindly accepting the conclusions of the ToE.  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As far as being “boiled alive in the flood”, I did call Brown about that once, and he spent quite a bit of time explaining “supercritical water” to me and the experiments he‘s done in regard to SCW.  I took a lot of notes at the time, but I have no clue where they are now.  Here’s a < link > that touches on the topic.  

As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.  

I’m not a Brown groupie as slpage would have everyone believe.  It’s just that the man is the closest I’ve come to someone who is interested primarily in the science rather than the political shit that goes on in this debate.  He keeps to himself, posts his entire book on-line so people have full access without having to give money to “charlatans”, and he doesn’t spend any time pounding the pavement trying to do away with materialism.  He’s been working 20 years on the scientific issues in this debate, and he’s very interesting to talk to.  I've questioned him several times, and he's always been patient and polite.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,17:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL

damn, you're funny.

you just don't know it.

here, let me help you:

what you just said there, if said by anybody with wit who understood the usage of satire, would be an example of using extreme understatement as satire.

here's another example:

I'm a little shy about liking Fred Phelps because of the mild anti-homosexual positions he takes rarely.


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,18:10

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I don't know if it's just a brit thing, or even just a me thing, but seeing "problem" written in quotes makes it look like you DON'T think the fact these civilisations continued despite being totally underwater and also dead is a problem for the flood.

Even if the rest of it were explainable, the fact that these people didn't die shows clearly the flood could not have covered the earth.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,18:12

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.  I don't believe that "all fossils are transitionals" as many evolutionists claim.  I don't believe that fossil series can explain how vital organs evolved from one body type to another.  Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?  Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

Yes, I know, I suffer from personal incredulity.  Sigh...nonetheless, at this point in time, I do not believe that we have the empirical evidence to claim that macroevolution is a fact.  It’s based on historical inference and A LOT of speculation.  It seems that it is okay to base ideas on speculation as long as it is in regard to the ToE, but creationist theories are expected to be backed with solid empirical evidence to even be considered.  In my mind, it certainly seems that these common descent stories are every bit as mystical as anything I've ever read in Genesis.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, actually it means that I like to read about this stuff, and since I have three new books on these topics, I thought I’d take some time to do so.   But, in a sense, you are correct because, IMHO, I don’t think that any of us really know for sure if transitionals exist which can support common descent to the extent to which scientists claim they can.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,18:13

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,18:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



this is nonsensical gibberish.  even you should be able to figure THAT out.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



kangaroos got bigger.

how's that?

here's another "amazing" thing for you to chew on:

how did horses manage to lose four toes and end up running on one...

*hint* we already know the answer to that.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,18:24

Icky,

You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  

It's not that I don't think AIG makes some very good points in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.  It's just that they seem to think it's their way or the highway and everyone else is simply and utterly wrong and going to hell.  That reminds me of the attitude that the "scientific community" (ie. NCSE) takes in regard to these issues - excluding the part about hell of course ;).

I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line is that these questions will have to be solved by what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,18:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you completely lack a sense of irony.  It's quite remarkable, but not uncommon in creation supporters.

we actually have a thread on a tangent to the issue, regarding sense of humor you might want to gander at.

though it's quite likely you won't get the point of that thread, either.

oh well.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



assuredly for example, you don't see the slightest irony in your statement here.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,18:28

I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,18:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why?

with the roos all you are doing is moving the teat farther away from the birth canal.

with equines, you are entirely changing the structure of the leg and foot. Have you ever even looked at the current equine series to see the changes?  pretty damn drastic.  and yes, there are LOTS of examples of even more drastic changes.  surely you don't think the start of the equine series is equivalent to the finish?

shorter version:

do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?

do you think short-legged horse with 5 toes would strike you as odd?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,18:51

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,18:35)

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Relatively speaking, wouldn't the two examples be somewhat similiar?  I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.  But, maybe not.  Also, we're talking instincts, not changes in structure.  I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,18:53

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:28)
I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what reason do you have to think that?


Oh, and please adress my post, I know I disappeared, but my computer went very strange, and I had to restart it.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,19:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?

somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?

you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



nope, they aren't (significantly), when first born.  and not surprisingly, it's completely irrelevant to the relative distance each type of joey has to crawl for its first meal.

what I was trying to get you to see what that the physical differences between a wallaby and one of the larger roos is mostly just a matter of size, while the changes between modern equines and their ancestors is gigantic.

what you find incredulous, IOW, is far more easily explained by a simple shift in the size of roos than the differences betwen modern equines and their acestors is, and yet, we have a very good series of fossils tracking the changes between modern and ancestral horses.

which of course leads back to why we find your statement so odd, and ask the same question:

why would you find the increasing travel distance of roo joeys to be more incredible than the change between modern and ancestral equines?

my guess would be that SOMEONE stuck that particular notion in your head.

care to share?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,19:06

sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,19:08

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:06)
sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The one you ignored, where I mention quantum mechanics. You know, the last post I made, the one where, I would assume, most people would look first. Incidentally, why did you sigh? I only asked you once, and I did it in a way that would make Lenny Flank explode if he tried to be that polite, so why react like I'd be spamming you every three seconds demanding a reply? Unless you want the lurkers to think we're harrassing you, building on a martyr complex which I honestly don't see at all, not one little bit.

I don't have all evening either, in fact it's already 1 in the morning over here, so don't be alarmed if I don't sob for you and your hardships with running out of time.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,19:10

careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,19:12

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:10)
careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, I've had someone on a forum I used to be on who was a FAR better martyr complex than FtK (which I'm not at all implying you have FtK, no siree, not one jot. You wont hear ME saying you have some need to be harshly done by because it feeds both your own psychosis and also your feeling that you are right and we're not only wrong but mean)
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,19:14

[quote=Ichthyic,June 23 2007,19:00][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know if it's so much the "crawling a little farther" that is the biggest obstacle to explain.  It's the initial way that the *instinct* started to evolve that puzzles me.  From the beginning, how did this instinct come to be?  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Kiddo"?  Didn't I read somewhere that you're 43...only one year older than me?  Maybe I have you confused with someone else.  Not that I particularly mind being called kiddo ;) .
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,19:15

see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,19:18

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:15)
see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I've been brought up with satire. Satire from Private Eye, from shows such as HAve I Got News For You etc. I learnt it from an early age, and I'm glad, because it sure as hell helps liven up some of the most dry, boring subjects for my degree.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,19:18



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

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as both Ian and I keep asking...

why?

based on an entirely instinctive viewpoint on your part?

have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet?

do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology?

I'd bet not.

Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?

answer Ian's questions first.

he's both on a deadline and apparently more interested than I am in your answers.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,19:20

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)


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

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as both Ian and I keep asking...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a long time, main contributor notices me, suddenly I'm the belle of the ball!

(Note to anyone reading who has had major brain surgery go wrong, this is more of what we humans call "humour")
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,19:30

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,19:36

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may be getting this wrong here, but I THINK you have misunderstood my quantum mechanics comment.

See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.

In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.

Keeping an open mind does NOT mean accepting that everything is equally valid, that is called being a fence sitting pig ignorant who tends to hmm and haw like Alain De Botton, and pretend they are really so much better than the closed mided people on either side of the fence, because they've yet to understand that a massive mountain of evidence from practically every field of science is not equal to "I just can't see it".
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,19:51

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)

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




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


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

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as both Ian and I keep asking...

why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, because I believe I somewhat understand mutations and from what I understand and have observed, most seem to be negative to the organism.  But, in rare cases they can be beneficial.  I can see how a mutation could change morphology, but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE), I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution.

Isn't it natural to question these issues?  I mean, they seem so much more improbable than examples like the ones I always hear at evolution lectures.  I swear, when I went to listen to Eugenie Scott at KU last year, I felt like I was sitting in a 5th grade science class.  She went on and on about natural selection and white and gray mice.  Same with Sean Carroll's lecture at KU...again, very simple (in my mind) examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I'm not "finished".  I've been using it as more of a reference book as I work my way through the other two books I've been reading.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know, I'll have to see what the books says about evolution of the mind, instinct, etc. etc.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,19:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



must i start all over again with the wallaby/roo comparison?  I swear, it's like talking to a five year old, kiddo.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what I understand and have observed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you've observed mutations, eh?

tell us about it.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



they why are you, since it's completely irrelevant to ANY point you are apparently at least trying to make here?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



there's that incredulity thing again.

go back to the last thing that I quoted from you that I labeled as ironic.

oh hell, i know you can't remember what you said 5 minutes after you said it, so here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I bet you STILL don't see the irony.

I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.

*yawn*

Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.  I concluded months ago that you were hopeless, long before you left off at KCSF.

It's just sating my own sense of humor to continue at this point.

one last thing for you to think about:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO.

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



add time and stir well.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,20:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:12

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:55)
Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I certainly would like to see some of these fantastical claims she keeps making.

Plus I really, really want the answer to the Egyptians thing. It's a question that I've always wanted to get a reply to.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:15

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. So how much evidence do you think there is?

2. How do you know there is this amount?

3. How much more is needed?

4. Why do you think you cannot draw a conclusion yet?

4.B. Assuming the above is related to the evidence for creation, explain, at least roughly (remember, I'm no scientist either) what it is.

5. What exactly IS creation science then?

6. What happened to all those Egyptians et al who lived happily under water whilst also dying?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,20:22

Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:25

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22)
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it does seem to be. Hell, I'm new to this, and still have some small part of me that can be convinced, but it's yet to be touched.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,20:27

Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:29

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:27)
Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Where did you answer any of them? (bar the water one, which wasn't in that list) You told me you HAD answers, and either couldn't remember them or were going to get them, and then.....

2. I didn't see much evidence, maybe I missed it. I'll give it another go.
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,20:35

Ian,

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:36

Hang about, whilst not on the topic of the boiling water thing, I did look at this: < Linky >

Now, I may be jumping the gun, but is this supposed to be evidence? If it is, it just amounts to "Ohh...look at the pretty! Therefore:God" Which is neither evidence, nor rational.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:35)
Ian,

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, but while I'm reading them, do you mind, and I'm being very civil here, so don't cry persecution on ME, digging up all that stuff on those pesky Egyptians, since that is something I've always wanted answering?
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,20:40

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:12)
I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because you don't know anything about science or scientists. I don't know anything about Thai food, but I have the good sense not to hang out on Thai food message boards telling Thai chefs they're doing it all wrong.

Scientists get direct contact with loonies such as creationists all the time. Loonies love attention. I'm not even a scientist, and hardly a month goes by that a person who hears I have a physics degree doesn't start telling me where Einstein got it wrong, or what's wrong with string theory, or that they learned a lot of physics from the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?". That last one is pretty much the only thing in the world that can send me into a state of rage.

The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty."


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:42

Ok, I've hit a snag already.

"Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity."

This is...well, I don't know what the fuck it is, but it isn't evolution.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,20:43

"Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates."

This is EVIDENCE to you?!

[In order to not get a lenny flank esque mass of posts, I'll add my next point here as an edit]

Ok, page christ only knows but it's not far, and what do we have here? Abiogenesis? What the hell does that have to do with evolution FtK?

[edit no. 2]

Ok, this is getting really repetative. He keeps making claims, but doesn't support them at all. By his logic, I can show the evidence that black is white.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,20:59

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22)
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh, but that would mean I was talking about something a creation scientist said, and not what you said now, wouldn't it.

nope. still blind to your own irony, though you at least got a slight bit closer.  

@ Steve:

I hereby claim this thread as evidence in support of the theory on humor discussed in the other thread.

wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,21:03

I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless?
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,21:06

LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 23 2007,21:09

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:03)
I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no.

go read the humor thread.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:12

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Numero uno, I am not freaking out. I'm aghast you think any of the first slew of pages contains evidence. I've got to < here > and frankly, I don't see it getting better.

Numero dos, I think it's pretty clear that he is one of the people who doesn't much like evolution, and thus, he should provide evidence against it. Sadly, I can't see any, and without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm very good at reading between the lines, and it's still not showing up on my radar.

Numero tres, I am open minded enough to accept any evidence, and so, if the creos start showing some I'll take it in. They will need a lot of it to change my mind about evolution, but if they can provide it, I will change my mind. THIS is being open minded, NOT "Well, someone disagrees with you, so suddenly everything you say needs to be compared on a level field to them".
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,21:15

But meesa sleepy.

:(
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:16

"No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors"

Oh boy, this is really, really wrong.

I mean, this is so wrong it's gone past being simply incorrect, and into a weird other dimension of wrongness.
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,21:24

Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..."
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:26

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:24)
Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read that too (but did not steal from it, so no lawyers please). In fact, I ended up here because of talk.origins, or rather, the archive.

I don't think I'm totally ignorant, but I'm certainly no scientist, so I come here to learn about evolution, to learn about how creos work, and to learn about the elusive evidence they say they have. I don't hold out much hope for the evidence, but hey, if they have it, boy do I want to see it, since it'll blow my atheism out of the water, and that I want to see.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:27

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:54)
Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm mildly curious as to, uh, why on earth you think anyone should pay the slightest attention to what you think, FTK . . . . . ?


Since, ya know, you don't actually know anything that you are talking about, and all . . . . .
Posted by: Ftk on June 23 2007,21:28

Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even started...< here >, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth.

Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:28

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:27)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:54)
Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm mildly curious as to, uh, why on earth you think anyone should pay the slightest attention to what you think, FTK . . . . . ?


Since, ya know, you don't actually know anything that you are talking about, and all . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hush now Lenny, I'm reading through the er....wonderful evidence FtK sent to me. I wonder if I will get any answers to my reactions to the....startling content.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:29

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:28)
Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even started...< here >, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth.

Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't seem to have any points against it though.

I mean, I concede I may only be in the intro bit, but so far he's just said that things are the way he says and then moves along.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:30

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
 In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.

So if my theory says the earth is flat, that's OK with you?

Or, uh, is it just "theories" about EVOLUTION that you think should all be treated equally . . . . .


(sigh)

No wonder nobody takes you seriously, FTK.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:33

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
 I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why, again, should anyone care if you have trouble accepting ToE as fact, or if you have trouble accepting heliocentrism as fact, or atomic theory as fact?

Since your entire knowledge of science would fit on the back of a postage stamp (if you drew lots of pictures), I'm not sure why on earth anyone should give a flying fig what you think about the matter . . . .?


After all, even with your, uh, years of studying peer-reviewed science, you STILL can't even tell if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or only 6,000 years old.

(snicker)  (giggle)

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously . . . . ?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:34

Now, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but (I have split these up by numbers to make it easier to read):

"1. They show design.

2. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs."

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

2. This is a lie, isn't it?

[addendum]

"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats."

Where the hell is he pulling this from?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:34

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12)
Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No kidding.


And yet you do, anyway.


Odd, isn't it.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:38

For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:38

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
 So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What other pronouncements from the, uh, scientific mindset are you open to questioning, FTK?

When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to cosndier alternative to germ theory?  Why not?

Are you open-minded to the "other explanation" of geocentrism?  Why not?

Atomic theory is just a part of that "scientific mindset", FTK -- do you cosnider "other explanations" for that?

Or is it only evolution that gets your undies all atwitter (because it offends your religious sensibilities)?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:40

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not the one who stormed out all in a huff, dearie.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:41

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
 But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hey FTK, why do all the old-earth anti-evolution creationists think that Wally Brown is full of cow crap?


Are they all just atheist god-haters?  (snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,21:43

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,22:34)
"1. They show design.

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"They show design" might be part of a PHEPH error, but by itself those three words aren't. 'course, I've been awake too long, so i could easily be wrong.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 23 2007,21:44

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,21:38)
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All she's gotta do to shut me up is . . . well . . . answer my questions.  (shrug)
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:44

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,22:34)
"1. They show design.

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"They show design" might be part of a PHEPH error, but by itself those three words aren't. 'course, I've been awake too long, so i could easily be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's more the context they were in. Essentially he was saying that since things show design, they must be designed, which, I believe, is AHEPH.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,21:45

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,21:38)
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All she's gotta do to shut me up is . . . well . . . answer my questions.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well she's answering mine, (sort of) and I'd rather she continued, because this is getting....interesting.

[edit] Make that VERY interesting.
Posted by: stevestory on June 23 2007,22:06

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,20:55)
I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a bit of an ethical dilemma inherent in this site. We censor almost nothing. This is not just because we're a great bunch of guys, but because frankly, when the creationists talk, they make creationists look stupid. This is useful to us. It's nice to have a creationist around making basic, Bio 101 type errors. (and Physics 101, and Geo 101, and Information Theory 101...) and also, we're entertained by it. Letting someone make a fool of themselves is not the most ethical thing in the world. On the other hand, they're doing it voluntarily, so we're not really culpable. It's a muddy issue that nags at me.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:09

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,22:06)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,20:55)
I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a bit of an ethical dilemma inherent in this site. We censor almost nothing. This is not just because we're a great bunch of guys, but because frankly, when the creationists talk, they make creationists look stupid. This is useful to us. It's nice to have a creationist around making basic, Bio 101 type errors. (and Physics 101, and Geo 101, and Information Theory 101...) and also, we're entertained by it. Letting someone make a fool of themselves is not the most ethical thing in the world. On the other hand, they're doing it voluntarily, so we're not really culpable. It's a muddy issue that nags at me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, unless they are goaded into it by someone being uncivil, I think it should stand. If someone doesn't want to make a total arse out of themselves, they don't have to say anything. The moment a person speaks, they give themselves up for ridicule and mocking.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:19

This book is really really weird. I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it.
Posted by: Mike PSS on June 23 2007,22:29

Keep up the work Ian.
I waded through that site also (in an ongoing "dialouge" with AFDave).  Your picking up more BS than I did, probably because I would just skim past some of the more inane comments as boiler plate.

But for some reason Ftk thinks this writing is the pinnacle of scholorship (or at least "consiliant" scholorship).

My $0.02 is to find one topic that you have some reasonable chance of knowing (like, how to spell it correctly) and paste WBrowns supposed claim.  Then find out from Google (this is where the proper spelling comes in handy) how many scientific papers are available that totally contradict said claim from Brown.

Pick any one.  I like the Hydroplates spewing supercritical water and spitting massive chunks of earth to the asteroid belt myself.  The math is detailed, but ends up boiling THEN freezing the earth.  Good stuff that, almost a fine vintage of tard.  (Note to self.  Reorganize tard file to rate on subject AND vintage)

I'm sure some reader here can C&P either a post from here, RD.net, Pandasthumb, Pharyngula, IIDB, or other site that has taken this tard to task in one form or another.  You could use this as a personal test to hone your skills in tard knocking.  Figure out the rebuttal then ask or search for past takedowns to find out how well you did.

Ftk,
you could defend WBrowns writings in whatever detail you would like.  Please find a claim that you hold near and dear to your heart and close to what you percieve as your intellectual strength.  Then post this claim here to see some honest rebuttals.  But first, I think Arden still has it out for you to convince him that you have read and comprehended a peer-reviewed paper.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:32

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 23 2007,22:29)
Keep up the work Ian.
I waded through that site also (in an ongoing "dialouge" with AFDave).  Your picking up more BS than I did, probably because I would just skim past some of the more inane comments as boiler plate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the support, and don't worry, I'm going to read the whole damn thing. I may have to depart soon (it IS 04:34 here) but I'll be back tomorrow. I've got ALL of tomorrow, and I read QUICKLY.

I'm not going to let this drop because if I actually find some evidence for creation (I'm not holding my breath) then I'm going to damn well post it here, and have it as my MSN name so EVERYONE can see the holy grail has been found.
Posted by: Henry J on June 23 2007,22:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ACK!



Henry
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:35

Another 'gem':

"Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease."

Frankly, I'm lost for words.

[Edit] The fun never stops with Walt Brown.

"Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer." False dichotomy surely? "Either miricle or designer"

(go easy on any spelling or grammar mistakes I might make, I'm REALLY tired)

[another edit] I appologise for the amazing growing posts, but I feel compeled to say that this book is the most gripping thing I've ever read. Even if I am having to listen to Crockett's Theme on continuous loop to stay awake.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:53

The last one had enough edits, so here we go again, hop on board the merry-go-round.

"18.   Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors.a They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs.b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.c Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened. "

I'm running a competition based on this post. It's called spot a logical fallacy. Note, not THE logical fallacy, just one of the many contained in this "page" of the "science book" I'm reading (note to FtK, if this all seems harsh, it's because it's FAR to late for me to be totally pleasant).

{special edit}

"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms."

OUTRIGHT LIE.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 23 2007,22:56

Right, that's it.

It's 05:00, and I'm going. I'll be back tomorrow.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 23 2007,23:11

This is all surpassing strange.  

Not long ago I attended a talk presented by Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, who directs the physical anthropology department of the Cleveland Museum of Natural history, on fieldwork his team is conducting in the Middle Awash Valley in Ethiopia. There, several seasons of hard work in a hot, dry, and remote environment have yielded very interesting fossil discoveries that illuminate a particular phase of hominid evolution. The presentation also outlined the implications of these findings for current models of hominid descent, and described the further excavations that are planned with hopes of resolving questions and testing hypotheses.

That is thrilling stuff, depicting human origins over time scales that induce vertigo (this research concerned events that occurred something like 40,000 centuries in the past). It also exemplified the hard work being done by working scientists around the world in pursuit of a deeper understanding of human origins and, more generally, the history of life on earth. These reasearchers proceed without taking note of the ridiculous polemics initiated by creationist and ID-creationist communities: there is too much difficult, time consuming, expensive, and exciting real science to be done.  

The contrast between this effort and the Baroque armchair bullshit of the Walt Browns and William Dembskis of the world could not be more clear. I for one am often dismayed by the stubborn ignorance displayed by the likes of FTK as they conduct an "open minded" march around the moebuis strip of creationist belief. But I also understand that that march never stops, because it can't, because it is motivated by group membership and identification, as I observed elsewhere vis Behe.

Discussions and debate such as this one, in which bizzarre inventions such as "hydroplate theory" vie for a place alongside serious scientific work, induce in me a sort of deep weariness, and a sadness, too. So I mostly stay out.

But its all rather a shame.
Posted by: argystokes on June 24 2007,02:12

FTK opined:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?! You're a dog owner! Variation and selection are the cause of all the different dog breeds, which I'm sure you know have rather different instincts. Ever been around a heeler or corgi puppy, and had them nip at your feet and ankles? That's a damned specific instinct not too common in bloodhounds, for example. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that someone who should have intimate knowledge of this subject could be so completely unaware.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,02:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WTF?! You're a dog owner!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh sure point out the obvious irony.

:p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,03:10



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


"Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity."

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



This 90 degree rotation of the biological jargon is pretty much diagnostic of antievolutionist rhetoric. From stuff I wrote back in 1996:

 

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

Date: Tue Apr 30 1996 18:35:58

I've decided to change the name of the "Lie A Day" feature to "But is it deception?" Many people get hung up on the connotation of lie being "an untruth that is both knowingly and deliberately told". Rather than wrangle over the attribution of internal states on the part of Henry M. Morris or whoever happens to occupy the hot seat in the future, I'll just point out that the statement given is untrue and leave it up to the reader to decide, "But is it deception?".

On page 2, paragraph 3, Morris says,

   "'Horizontal variations' (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, [...]"

Of course, 'horizontal' change as defined by biologists is speciation. Different breeds of dogs do not represent separate species. If we flip Morris' assertion through a 90 rotation, we still come up with an untruth, since vertical variation is also evolution so long as the diagnostic criterion of allele frequency change in the population is met.

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



(< Source >)

And another from 1996:

 

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

Get it straight: horizontal change is change in diversity (speciation or extinction), vertical change is adaptive change in a lineage.  Consult any competent biology textbook.

For either case, we have observational evidence.  David can
disagree all he wants, and the observations will still stand.

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



(< Source >)


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,03:57

Well, since I was somehow still awake at 5 am, if I started acting strangely, blame that instead.

Personally I can't wait for some kind of reply to all this, in the meantime, I'm going to continue with my trudge through the Walt Brown book. Although if people want me to shut up about all (hell, I can't even be bothered for that. Most) of the things I find, a quiet word in the ear via PM would be appriciated.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,04:01

"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."

Wow, and guess what? Even more DON'T! We're sure learning something here, but don't ask ME what it is.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,04:48

Ok, I'm not sure what to make of < this. >

Any help?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2007,06:17

Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,06:22

"The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable."

The word "so?" springs to mind.

"If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system."

This is hammering a square peg into a round hole, I believe. Insisting that something must be just so without actually KNOWING what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 24 2007,11:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow this guy has an awful understanding of biology.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,11:12

just biology?

I must have missed where he exhibited a coherent grasp of anything he actually wrote about.

don't forget, as FTK told us, he's a shining beacon and the leading creation scientist!

he must also have been the source for that fascinating documentary,
< "Cat Dog" >


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2007,11:20

FTK, simple question. Do you agree with


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



y/n

?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,11:22

you might want to wait on that one until she finishes that basic biology text that she said was beneath her level of knowledge.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,11:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



y/n

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,11:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you just don't get that what you said makes no sense at all, do you?
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,12:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,12:05

FtK:



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

We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.

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



So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that < colchicine > and < overpressure > fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,12:06

you've become nothing more than a redistributor of creationist claptrap.

don't you see the difference in you posting links ONLY to "creation science" websites, where we can post links to innumerable published articles in actual science journals?

are you truly that delusional to think the two are somehow equivalent?

both sad and pathetic.

close the book.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,12:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,12:05)
FtK:



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

We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.

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



So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that < colchicine > and < overpressure > fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?  I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,12:16

Icky gets all huffy...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
close the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...why?  It's really interesting, and it makes me think about things from a different perspective.
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on June 24 2007,12:24

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



y/n

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the first line here:

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences13.html >

The problem is that it's not true.  The statement of evolutionary theory is that cats and dogs (and every other critter) have a common ancestor.  That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat".

Define "macro change".  How is a "macro change" different from a great many "micro-changes" one after the other?
Posted by: creeky belly on June 24 2007,12:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See < here > for a discussion on the Oort cloud and belt formation.  There's lots of useful information on short and long period comet formation in section 3 and section 4 deals specifically with the Oort cloud. The question these days isn't so much if it exists, but the dynamics of the cloud formation. Let me know if you have questions!
Posted by: Mike PSS on June 24 2007,13:06

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,13:03)
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I think is more important than the attempt at pooh-poohing science is WHY this attempt is taken.

Ftk,
WHY does the present scientific explanation for the Oort cloud formation (or existance) require some creationist tracts against this explanation?

I really want to know, from you (or the creationist authors) WHY you have to disprove this point.

There has to be a reason behind this attempt to discredit published science.

WHY?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,13:06

FtK:



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

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?

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



Unsurprisingly, no, it isn't. There is the well-documented case of Hyla versicolor, for one. And then, if FtK had bothered to even glance at the second link I provided, she would have known that the topic there was various fish stocks.

Even if it were limited to flowering plants (which, by the way, it is not), FtK would still be out of luck (which is all she has to go on, since actually learning about something before spouting seems to be anathema) since macroevolution can be evidenced via plants.

FtK:



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

I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.

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



Unsurprisingly, FtK is wrong about this, too. < Orchid growers > note the varietal designation gigantea:



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

Var. gigantea- a term used for large-flowered types that are probably tetraploids.

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



Now, there might be some quibbling about "new morphology". What tetraploidy does in orchids certainly presents heritable change that is linked to differing morphology. Only creationists want evolution to have mechanisms that can be directly equated to "poof!".

It could also be noted that various researchers have dismissed polyploid events as not evolutionarily significant. Here's an abstract of a paper that takes that idea on and argues for the relevance of polyploidy to macroevolutionary change:



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

The role of polyploidy per se in the development of evolutionary novelty remains one of the outstanding questions in flowering plant evolution. Since chromosome doubling usually is associated with hybridization, the effects of doubling are difficult to uncouple from those of hybridity and recombination. Synthetic polyploids in crops typically are inferior to their diploid counterparts under conditions to which the diploids are adapted. This observation has suggested to many that chromosome doubling is a hindrance to progressive evolution. Evidence is presented herein from biochemical, physiological, developmental, and genetical sources which indicates that the nucleotypic effects of chromosome doubling are not necessarily negative. Indeed chromosome doubling may "propel" a population in to a new adaptive sphere, and render it capable of occupying habitats beyond the limits of its diploid progenitor. This postulate is consistent with what we know of the ecological tolerances of diploids and related polyploids. As the establishment of a polyploid subpopulation may occur within a short time span, chromosome doubling may bring about abrupt, transgressive, and conspicuous changes in the adaptive gestalt of populations within microevolutionary time.

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



Donald A. Levin.  1983. Polyploidy and Novelty in Flowering Plants. The American Naturalist, Vol. 122, No. 1 (Jul., 1983), pp. 1-25.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 24 2007,13:28

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All science in tentative. Unlike the bible, eh?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,13:35

After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,13:46

I've done it!

I know where Walt Brown gets his science from!

< Look Around You >!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2007,14:01

The whole paragraph.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >

Yep, proof positive. I'll just check however to see if anybody else is looking into it....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Molecular systematics The platypus put in its place : Article : Nature
The next best alternative places the platypus on the early ... Solving the evolutionary tree will not be the end of the study; rather it will be the start ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Theria hypothesis holds that eutherians (humans, rats, pigs,
whales, etc.) and marsupials (kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, etc.)
have evolved from a common ancestor, and monotremes (platypus,
echidna) have evolved from a different ancestor and on a separate
land mass. The mitochondrial method of studying evolution, however,
supports the Marsupionta hypothesis, which places the platypus and
kangaroo together. This controversy has lasted for more than two
centuries since the discovery that the platypus lays eggs.

"Our study is the first to provide statistically unambiguous results
in favor of classifying mammals using the Theria hypothesis, as
paleontologists have long done through studying fossils," Jirtle
said. "Now we need to retest the results generated by scientists who
have used mitochondrial DNA sequences to link mammals such as hippos
to whales."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
There are all sorts of interesting links out there but I can't find any scientists saying "Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree."

Google search for < platypus+"evolutionary tree" >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2007,14:24

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Odd. You could (should?) have said something more like "Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many other scientists who are working on proving that in fact it does not exist. They've got a good testable case, lab and telescope time and it's a close race! Oh, and the anti-Oort team also believe the earth is less then 10,000 years old and are doing this to help prove that"

Copy and Paste from AIG et al it'll have to be!
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,15:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2007,13:28)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All science in tentative. Unlike the bible, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Richard... :)

I'm not sure what your point is.  Science is tentative...there are different interpretations of the bible and how literal we should consider it's history.  

And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".

Your point?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,16:00

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,15:52)
And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty pointless to rewrite fiction.

Oh, and don't start sentances with and.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,16:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is the well-documented case of Hyla versicolor, for one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And then, if FtK had bothered to even glance at the second link I provided, she would have known that the topic there was various fish stocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You’re right...I didn’t check out the link.  I’ll try to get to it later tonight.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, there might be some quibbling about "new morphology". What tetraploidy does in orchids certainly presents heritable change that is linked to differing morphology. Only creationists want evolution to have mechanisms that can be directly equated to "poof!".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I certainly don’t need “poof”, but some empirical evidence for macro changes would be helpful.  Can you show me some pictures of exactly what you are talking about when you refer to orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.  I glanced at the link and saw some orchids, but I’m not sure exactly what the changes are that are taking place.

I’ve got to get to another ball game (believe it or not) and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,16:09

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:01)
and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anything specific?
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,16:11

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.

[ps..I like to start sentences with "And".  I don't care if it's poor grammer or not.  Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.]
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,16:14

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trust me, I'm going to read it all. I've only skipped over one bit, and that was the preface (I wanted to get to the meat of the book, so to speak) and it certainly is an eye opener.

What I can't understand is, how is this evidence to you? I mean, you must know that there are obvious challenges to a great number of the things in the first 30 sections, so how does this persuade you evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be? You could be right, but how the hell this book leads you to that answer, so far, I don't get..
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,16:22

Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,16:25

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:22)
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what do you think motivates the scientific community to keep the mass of questions quiet? Why do you think they aren't doing this research themselves?

Also, finally, why aren't the creos doing any research?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,16:29



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

But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.

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



< Skim this. >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,16:40

I had forgotten this delightful quote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've long had the idea that creationism is basically 'folk science', in the sense that it's equally valid regardless of who advocates it or what they say about it. Nice to see that others had already noticed.

PS: Yikes! 3,000!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,16:52

FtK:



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

I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

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



Before, you said:



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

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?

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



Hyla versicolor is a tetraploid species group that is not a plant, therefore illustrating that your notion of what polyploidy might be limited to came from ignorance, not knowledge.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but ever so clearly no actual science.

now tell us all about bigfoot and Nessy, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,17:20

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,16:52)
FtK:

 

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

I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

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



Before, you said:

 

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

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?

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



Hyla versicolor is a tetraploid species group that is not a plant, therefore illustrating that your notion of what polyploidy might be limited to came from ignorance, not knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there a point in this exercise, Wes?

you can go back literally years and see the exact same kinds of information imparted to her on other forums and other threads, and see the endless cycle repeat itself over and over.  starts off with projection (all scientists are just like church worshippers), then denial of the myriad of evidence presented showing this just ain't so, followed by running away to "ponder", followed by returning with the exact same projections they start with.  

How many times have we seen the exact same pattern now?

I know for me it must be close to a hundred.  

You're simply not going to convince a diehard taker of snake oil that it doesn't work.

there is really only one thing remaining to decide wrt to keeping threads like this going, IMO:

Is it worth pursuing the endless loop in order to refresh information for lurkers.

frankly, if an interesting issue pops up, like polyploidy and speciation, I've always thought that a better thing to do would be to create a separate thread to explore the specific issue in depth, so the focus of the thread IS the science.

alternatively, the only other valuable insight to come from threads like this is yet another data point supporting the idea that commitment to woo and pseudoscience is a matter of psychology only.

IOW, I find there to be complete justification in a thread like this for a post like the one where you simply linked to the ICC ("skim this").  There seems little point in trying to explain polyploidy and speciation to someone who find value in the idea of a CatDog as relevant to evolutionary theory.

It really is all just like "rocket science" to her.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,17:33



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

Is there a point in this exercise, Wes?

you can go back literally years and see the exact same kinds of information imparted to her on other forums and other threads, and see the endless cycle repeat itself over and over.

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



I've been using Hyla versicolor as a remedy for ignorance since at least 1995, long before FtK appeared on the scene. Yeah, another thread might be a good thing. But, yes, the point is now, as it always has been, the edification of the lurkers.
Posted by: don_quixote on June 24 2007,17:34

I think Mike PSS, Louis, and the other Brits here will appreciate it the most, but I personally think this sums up the creo-mind wonderfully:

From < Father Ted: Good Luck, Father Ted >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:36

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
 Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  < Here's > the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about the Kuiper Belt, FTK.  Does that, uh, exist?

(snicker)  (giggle)

Stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

You dont.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:39

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:13)
Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks for once again demonstrating your ignorance to everyone.

Go Google "Hyla versicolor".


Why oh why why why do you insist on blithering about things you don't understand and don't know anything about?

And why oh why why why do you actually expect anyone to listen to you seriously?

Geez.  Your martyr complex must be far more massive than I thought.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:43

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 24 2007,13:06)
What I think is more important than the attempt at pooh-poohing science is WHY this attempt is taken.

Ftk,
WHY does the present scientific explanation for the Oort cloud formation (or existance) require some creationist tracts against this explanation?

I really want to know, from you (or the creationist authors) WHY you have to disprove this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an old old YEC argument -- goes something like this:

Creationut:  We see short-period comets in the sky.  If the earth were actually old, all the short-period comets would be gone by now.  Therefore the earth isn't old.

Sane person:  Um, short period comets come from the Kuiper belt and the Oordt cloud, and are constantly being replenished.

Creationut:  Nuh-uh.  There really isn't any Kuiper Belt or Oordt cloud.  It's all just an atheistic commie plot to destroy God.


Right, FTK?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:47

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:01)
I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA AHHA AHA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA A HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA AH AH AHAHA HA HA H  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(recovers, picks self off of floor)


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA A A H AH AH AH HA HA HA HA H HAHA H AH HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHHA   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why the hell does anyone even bother?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:50

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
 But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.  

 If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This from the very same person who jsut got finished tellign us:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You’re right...I didn’t check out the link.  I’ll try to get to it later tonight.


I glanced at the link and saw some orchids, but I’m not sure exactly what the changes are that are taking place.

I’ve got to get to another ball game (believe it or not) and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Hypocrisy, thy name is "creationist".

Ever wonder why nobody takes you seriously, FTK . . . . ?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:52

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
 Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, I do seriously think you're obsessed with me.  What are you, in love or something?

Or is it just that I give you what you really want deep down inside ---- food for your massive martyr complex?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,17:33)
I've been using Hyla versicolor as a remedy for ignorance since at least 1995
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I think you stole it from ME, dammit.  

;)
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,17:57

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, I do seriously think you're obsessed with me.  What are you, in love or something?

Or is it just that I give you what you really want deep down inside ---- food for your massive martyr complex?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the man who posts a ridiculous number of times in a row to a woman he knows won't answer?

Why do you waste your time Lenny? For gods sake calm yourself down.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,17:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,17:33)
 

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

Is there a point in this exercise, Wes?

you can go back literally years and see the exact same kinds of information imparted to her on other forums and other threads, and see the endless cycle repeat itself over and over.

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



I've been using Hyla versicolor as a remedy for ignorance since at least 1995, long before FtK appeared on the scene. Yeah, another thread might be a good thing. But, yes, the point is now, as it always has been, the edification of the lurkers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



fair enough, and I'm in no way trying to be overly critical here, but shouldn't it be made abundantly clear then?

If the initial impetus of a thread is to try and convince by evidential argument, at what point does the law of diminishing returns apply?

for example, that "creator god" thread went on for several THOUSAND posts.

If the goal was to try and convince Dave Hawkins of anything, I'd say the law of diminishing returns was reached after the first 20 posts or so.

seriously, I'm asking:

when should the law of diminishing returns honestly apply, if the point of the thread is to try and convince the subject of something?

frankly, as I admitted to earlier in this thread, I saw little point in continuing other than to dredge up the constant bits of irony posted by FTK merely to amuse myself.  If I wanted to recapitulate Brown's horrid bit of delusion he calls a "book", I'd make a thread about it and tear it apart piece by piece.

I'd say that at some point, the pretense of trying to convince the unconvincable has to be dropped.  The effort is never wasted when a fresh face comes to town, but we're looking at an ancient mummified corpse here (no reference to physical appearance implied or intended).

repeating what I said earlier, I see little value in discussing polyploidy with her, and a more honest answer to her repeated issuings to be simply a link to ICC, just as you did with the earlier post.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing this whole thing, but really, at some level it just seems a bit dishonest to even pretend this person is truly interested in learning, given that there are putatively a great many others who ARE.

seriously, I rather envision the role of the "subjects" of the entire Hawkins thread, and these ones with FTK, to be little more than reminders of things that are otherwise actually interesting to discuss in a thread on their own.

for example, I could understand the role of FTK in reminding us the importance of looking at genetics in plants as an interesting topic in the study of evolution.

but then, I find that simply having a list of interesting topics in evolution ready to hand serves much the same purpose.

Steve touched on this earlier, but perhaps the reason I am taking the time to analyze this in horrid detail is at some point, it seems like it just becomes an exercise in cruelty to keep throwing water balloons at the clown, long after their initial performance is done, even if the clown keeps setting themselves up to be pelted, over and over and over again.

I'm thinking, for example, that once some recognized diminishing return in discussion is reached, rather than addressing an issue like that of polyploidy to an "FTK", a more productive and fun (yeah, I'm sick that way) thing to do would be to say something like:

"Oh yeah, that reminds me of some great examples of polyploidy.  I'll just make a quick thread in case there are those that might be interested in asking questions about it."

then the issue becomes not about trying to thrust actual science into the face of the ignorant and unlearnable (which rather ends up like trying to prove the sky is blue to someone who is colorblind), but about the science itself, which in the end, speaks for itself.

If interest is expressed in the new thread, then a more in depth discussion can proceed without the distraction of the clown in the room.

anyway, I just felt like it was time to express my thoughts on the issue, now that I've observed so many threads like this.  There is both a serious and a humorous side to everything, and while I often come here for the humor value (which still exists in this thread), I just wanted to throw out something I had been seriously thinking about for a while now.

apologies to FTK for distracting her from regurgitating things she doesn't understand from Brown's ramblings.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,18:20



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

Hey, I think you stole it from ME, dammit.

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



Could be. In which case, thank you, Lenny, for the example.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 24 2007,18:23

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,17:36)
How about the Kuiper Belt, FTK.  Does that, uh, exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is equivocal.  It could also be interpreted to support the theory of the Kuiper Suspenders.  Recent photographs have done nothing to clear the issue up.



Coincidence that the table is positioned in the exact right place? Of course not, it was specifically (may I say, intelligently?) placed to obscure so that we all have to decide for ourselves where the evidence leads.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,18:36

@Arden Chatterbox:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: Yikes! 3,000!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'bout time.

:p
Posted by: Henry J on June 24 2007,18:52

Re "If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain."

Doesn't that pretty much just describe what happens when a species goes extinct?

---

Re "That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat"."

Right - and it might also have to be half bear, half weasel, and half a few other things. Course, with all those halves, the critter might be pretty large.

---

Re "The mitochondrial method of studying evolution, however, supports the Marsupionta hypothesis, which places the platypus and kangaroo together."

Would that imply that live birth evolved separately in marsupials and eutherians?

Henry
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,19:01

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,16:25)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:22)
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what do you think motivates the scientific community to keep the mass of questions quiet? Why do you think they aren't doing this research themselves?

Also, finally, why aren't the creos doing any research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hon, I don't think there is a mass "conspiracy" from the scientific community to keep creation scientists or IDists quiet.  My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.  

I believe the core groups such as NCSE, etc. are thoroughly and completely convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution (microbe to man) is a fact.  They truly believe that creationists and IDists are lying, cunning con artists.  They feel it is their mission in life to put a stop to these fiends who are out to "stop science".  

And, why would anyone doubt them?  

The majority of scientists are materialists, so when a place like NCSE tells them that the only reason why people doubt evolution is due to fanatical religious beliefs, they would have no reason to question it.  And, truth be told, some religious groups get quite loony about this topic and go off the deep end (ie. Hovind), which doesn't help matters.

Certainly, biologists go nuts about the topic because it hits so close to home and they believe their entire world would fold if common descent were not a "fact".  Heck the textbooks base everything on this "cornerstone" of science.  But, in reality, I still see very little necessity in believing that every organism on the face of the earth evolved from a flippin' little microbe.  

Gosh, I keep looking in this textbook Dave gave me and staring at that little microbe and the series of pictures that supposedly respresents how that little sucker looked when it started on its evolutionary journey.  

I'm wondering if someone threw some pixie dust on it to get it to be able to do something that resulted in everything we observe in the world today.  I mean, color me impressed...ya got nothing...then miracuously a microbe starts rolling around...somehow natural selection kicked in....then a mutation occurs (sounds miraculous to me)...WOW! something changed a little...time goes by...amazing change occurs again...it reproduces itself for some reason (though how that happened is a complete mystery}...little changes occur over time in the byproducts of the microbe...etc., etc., etc. until we end up with the most amazing designs in nature that one could ever conceive of....all the result of a tiny little BLOB and the mechanisms of evolution.  

Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.

Oh, and "creos" do research, you'll just never find it in anything considered "mainstream".  Just keep reading...
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,19:13

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,19:16

Quote (Henry J @ June 24 2007,18:52)
Re "That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat"."

Right - and it might also have to be half bear, half weasel, and half a few other things. Course, with all those halves, the critter might be pretty large.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


maybe we should ask Manbearpig:



there i go, amusing myself at the expense of FTK again.

*bad fishy!*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,19:17

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,17:57)
Says the man who posts a ridiculous number of times in a row to a woman he knows won't answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That, of course, being the whole point.

As I've noted before, my questions make their point whether FTK answers or not.  I don't need her cooperation.

Indeed, her continuous refusal to answer, only reinforces my point.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,19:18

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,19:17)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,17:57)
Says the man who posts a ridiculous number of times in a row to a woman he knows won't answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That, of course, being the whole point.

As I've noted before, my questions make their point whether FTK answers or not.  I don't need her cooperation.

Indeed, her continuous refusal to answer, only reinforces my point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, for whatever reason, she IS replying to me.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,19:20

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Hon, I don't think there is a mass "conspiracy" from the scientific community to keep creation scientists or IDists quiet.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, of course you do, FTK.

Don't bullshit us.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,19:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, for whatever reason, she IS replying to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*psst*

she thinks she is winning you over to her side.

(don't tell her!)

*snicker*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,19:22

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
 My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Riiiiigggghhhhtttttt -- geologists for a hundred-fifty years now haven't given any real thought to the age of the earth AT ALL.


(snicker)  (giggle)

Do you ever wonder why everyone laughs at you, FTK . . . .?
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,19:22

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,16:52)
FtK:



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

I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

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



Before, you said:



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

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?

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



Hyla versicolor is a tetraploid species group that is not a plant, therefore illustrating that your notion of what polyploidy might be limited to came from ignorance, not knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.  You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent.  Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,19:22

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:21)
she thinks she is winning you over to her side.

(don't tell her!)

*snicker*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.

"Delusional"  appears to be her middle name.  (sigh)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,19:27

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:22)
You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya know what, FTK?  People who are self-admittedly ignorant about science should probably, ya know, shut up about it.

By the way, when you finish telling Ian that HE should go and read all of Brown's wonderful book instead of, uh, having you explain it to him, maybe YOU can take your own damn advice and get your ignorant butt to a library and learn a thing or two.

Fortunately for you, ignorance is a correctable condition.  Un-fortunately for you, though, correcting it requires some effort on your part.

But then, you already know that.  Which is why you're still ignorant.  (shrug)
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,19:27

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,19:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said "quite slim", Ian.  Just like the chances of you ever accepting biblical history as somewhat accurate is "quite slim".  

I may not have all the facts, so I keep delving into this stuff.  Something tells me you may not have all the facts in regard to what you think is complete bunk in regard to biblical history, but I doubt you're still open minded or even considering the possibility that you might be wrong.  

I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.  So, let's just leave it that, shall we?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 24 2007,19:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Er, biologists do it's quite important it tends to come up quite often in meetings and such.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe the core groups such as NCSE, etc. are thoroughly and completely convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution (microbe to man) is a fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's what most biologists think to.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The majority of scientists are materialists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'd like to see a survey of biologists religious beliefs where the answers were 'believe in God', 'believe in God some of the time', 'agnostic/atheist', and 'who even gives a crap why don't you ask me something important and stop wasting my time?' You'd find the atheist vote shrinks quite considerably.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so when a place like NCSE tells them that the only reason why people doubt evolution is due to fanatical religious beliefs, they would have no reason to question it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've seen plenty of evidence that the majority of scientists who question evolution do so due to religious beliefs. What is much more important to scientists is that creationists are wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly, biologists go nuts about the topic because it hits so close to home and they believe their entire world would fold if common descent were not a "fact".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Biologists tend to have strong reactions to Intelligent design folk because a) the ID people try to completely bypass the scientific process and and get their theories taught in schools etc, and b) because creationists routinely paint biologists as part of a corrupt atheist conspiracy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
in reality, I still see very little necessity in believing that every organism on the face of the earth evolved from a flippin' little microbe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well the main reason is because they think that's what the evidence points to.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,19:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



no need to remind us yet again that you operate from a position of near pure projection.

really.

we got it the first 100 times you made it clear.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,19:35

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,17:52)
   
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
 Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, I do seriously think you're obsessed with me.  What are you, in love

or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She wants you, Lenny. I can tell.

I think it's the whole snake thing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I won't even ask how FTK thinks she knows what most scientists think. It'd probably shorten my lifespan just to hear the answer.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The majority of scientists are materialists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But whaddaya know, even the ones who aren't 'materialists' believe the things that make FTK uncomfortable. Funny, that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Something tells me you may not have all the facts in regard to what you think is complete bunk in regard to biblical history, but I doubt you're still open minded or even considering the possibility that you might be wrong.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you keeping an 'open mind' about the Hindu creation story? At least it comes a hell of a lot closer to the age of the universe than the Hebrew creation story you're so defensive of...
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,19:35

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,19:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said "quite slim", Ian.  Just like the chances of you ever accepting biblical history as somewhat accurate is "quite slim".  

I may not have all the facts, so I keep delving into this stuff.  Something tells me you may not have all the facts in regard to what you think is complete bunk in regard to biblical history, but I doubt you're still open minded or even considering the possibility that you might be wrong.  

I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.  So, let's just leave it that, shall we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I believe biblical history? It makes no sense, has no evidence and therefore has absolutely no grounding in reality. I don't care if Jesus was real or not, but anyone who says the flood occurred had better come up with some damn good evidence.

Also, why didn't you answer my perfectly reasonable question about publishing? I can honestly tell you that I've never read creo stuff before (bar a few bits and pieces here and there, and the insane dribblings of AirFarceDave) and I will continue to be completely and relentlessly polite to you, so you will have no need to call me on my actions.

As an addendum, why do you come on as a hidden user FtK? I'm really curious, because I don't understand why anyone would want to come on as hidden, especially if they are going to start posting.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,19:48

ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as Obee wan said to Anakin:

"You have done that yourself"
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,19:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, why didn't you answer my perfectly reasonable question about publishing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, come on Ian, creation science is completely at odds with everything evolutionists have put forth for a 150 years.   The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.  Jeez, look what happened with the Steinberg incident... and that paper wasn't such a big deal, yet Eugenie about blew a gasket!

< This > is why Brown doesn't submit his work to be published.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an addendum, why do you come on as a hidden user FtK? I'm really curious, because I don't understand why anyone would want to come on as hidden, especially if they are going to start posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, the truth about that is really quite embarrasing.  On days that I have the time to do so, I spend an ungodly amount of time on evolution/creation websites and blogs.  It's a bit of an obsession, so I worry that someone might consider my habit a mental health issue and try to get me institutionalized or at least heavily medicated.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,19:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, come on Ian, creationism science is completely at odds with everything evolutionists scientists have put forth for a 150 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There. Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,19:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?

*shakes head violently ala Lewis Black*



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a bit of an obsession
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yes, reinforcing and re-rationalizing one's delusions on a daily basis often takes a lot of time.

time better spent in therapy, I'd wager.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,19:56

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to say, the man has stolen my answer.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,19:58

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:52)

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.  Why would they?  Minds are set irregardless of the questions plaguing the theory.  The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.
Posted by: Ftk on June 24 2007,20:00

Sorry, gotta go again.  I'll check back in about 2 hours or so.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 24 2007,20:07

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:58)
[quote=Ichthyic,June 24 2007,19:52][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.  Why would they?  Minds are set irregardless of the questions plaguing the theory.  The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They would do it because they would love to shoot it down in flames. If they COULDN'T shoot it down in flames, they would love it because it shows them the new way to do research, a new paradigm to comprehend and to wonder at.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,20:14



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

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Out of curiosity, why do you think that geologists are in on this conspiracy as well?
Posted by: JonF on June 24 2007,20:15

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,20:58)
 I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, sure.  That's why Einstein couldn't get his paper on special relativity published, and the paper on the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel prize) was never published. Oh, wait ...

Face it, FtK. papers with evidence backing them, papers with valid logic and math, get published especially if they go against the grain.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those three words summarize your utter ignorance of science.  Why would they?  Because that's where the exciting and great science is done.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,20:24

why did Lynn Margulis' early work on endosymbiosis get published and receive so much attention?

Why did WD Hamilton's ideas on Kin Selection get published and garner so much attention?

there is a long history in Science that the irrational purposefully ignore of odd ideas garnering attention IF THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.

that FTK purposefully ignores this is but a symptom of her mental illness that allows her to think that her projections are somehow meaningful.

let's not kid ourselves here, there is nothing that explains her pattern of projection and denial OTHER than that she is suffering from some psychological disorder, and it's not like anyone who has spent more than a day here or on PT hasn't seen the same pattern before. Check the thread featuring Mark Hausam on PT for last week's example.

it's freakin' basic psych 101.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,20:26



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

Face it, FtK. papers with evidence backing them, papers with valid logic and math, get published especially if they go against the grain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is true. There is no surer ticket to glory and acclaim (and good jobs) in science and academia than to overturn all the previous received wisdom on a subject. The point is, if that's what you're trying to do (and believe me, it does happen) you'd better make sure you can REALLY back up your arguments REALLY REALLY well.

See, this is why academic journals wouldn't publish a paper saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Arguments like 'this would be really convincing if you guys weren't all materialists' tend not to cut much ice.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 24 2007,20:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I can't speak for young earth creationism, but I have never seen anything from ID that would be able to qualify as an article for most journals (ie research). I am yet to see an example of an ID paper that has been rejected for example. Or a grant that would lead to research to put in a paper for that matter.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is why Brown doesn't submit his work to be published.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From that page:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In my experience yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeez, look what happened with the Steinberg incident... and that paper wasn't such a big deal, yet Eugenie about blew a gasket!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well the paper a) did a lousy job of reviewing the literature and its wasn't a suitable subject for the journal (and I don't just mean ID), so there's two reasons that it shouldnt have been published for a start.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Assuming that's what the evidence points to they would. If there was actually compelling evidence of ID or that the earth is only 6000 years old journals would be falling over themselves trying to publish it. Again I cant speak for YEC's but the ID folk don't appear to be looking for the evidence that would be needed.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,20:41

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:27)
 Just like the chances of you ever accepting biblical history as somewhat accurate is "quite slim".  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, uh, thought creationism was "science" and didn't have a blooming thing to do with "biblical history" . . . ?

Or are creationists just lying about that, too?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,20:44

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:49)
Oh, come on Ian, creation science is completely at odds with everything evolutionists have put forth for a 150 years.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like geocentrism.

Does that, uh, tell you anything, FTK . . . . ?


(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,20:45

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:49)
 It's a bit of an obsession, so I worry that someone might consider my habit a mental health issue and try to get me institutionalized or at least heavily medicated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(bites tongue)


(bites tongue harder)



(draws blood)


Nahhhhhhhhhh, too easy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,20:46

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,20:00)
Sorry, gotta go again.  I'll check back in about 2 hours or so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that how long a fix lasts you . . . .?

(sigh)  You need serious help, FTK.  Seriously.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 24 2007,20:50

Wow, I just got back from camping in Wyoming (pictures to be uploaded later), where we saw lots of neat critters, including moose. I found myself wondering how Noah handled (and fed!) those quys on the Ark.

Anyhoo, it looks like this thread has exploded in recent days; sorry I missed so much. I did note that FtK has completely ignored my questions from a few days ago, so I'll repost them here.

What is the difference between what you say in < this comment >, and what a theistic evolutionist would say? Since you are on record as saying that you don't understand theistic evolutionists; this is a key question. It doesn't require any research; I'm asking you to explain your position and compare it to a position which you have railed against in the past. And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book. Evidence for your claim has been requested several times < by myself and others >

But after you answer that one, I'd like to raise another point, relative to this statement.
   
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:27)
I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.  So, let's just leave it that, shall we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the risk of derailing this thread (again) into a discussion of religion, I think a couple of things need to be pointed out. Please uderstand, FtK, I am NOT asking you to discuss religion; I AM asking you to reflect on why nobody here (except yourself) considers you to be "open-minded".

Please contrast how you approach issues of religion and science. In your religious views, you apparently believe, based on what you have heard from authority figures (unless, of course, you are fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Geek and other languages not including Portuguese) several totally illogical and unsupported things. Those would include the notion of a creator God who made humans and then got very irritated when they disobeyed his commands. To show his irritation, He did many harsh things not only to the sinners but to all of their descendants. But to prove His benevolence, He decided to send himself (aka his son) to tortured and killed in order for him to be able to forgive the descendants (who were not guilty of the original crime). Back off a bit from that stuff and ask yourself

1) Is that logical?
2) What is the factual and verifiable evidence for that story?

And you would find, that the answers are

1) Not at all.
and
2) None.

Yet you accept it.

Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence. You claim knowledge of scientific facts in order to justify your skepticism, when in reality your knowledge of those facts is quite superficial. Your skepticism toward science is completely at odds with your uncritical acceptance of an ilogical and unverifiable story.

Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded???

All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas. If you want to accept the pronouncements of authority figures, please do so in all arenas. You can't have it both ways, depending on how you feel about the topic..

NB - Please don't use this as a jumping off point to discuss your religious beliefs. As noted above, that is not the point. The point is intellectual consistency. But if you do decide to wade into this swamp again, please answer my questions about your explanation of icefish evolution, and give us some examples of "speculation" from Campbell et al. first.

thanks
Posted by: creeky belly on June 24 2007,20:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Especially when it's poor science. If you look at Brown's page, he eliminates himself from being able to publish:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the testing, and does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees? In other words, is there an unbiased judge? Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?  The playing field is not level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The people that get published are those who question paradigms well supported by evidence; indeed the whole point of science is that it can be done and verified by anyone.  It's more than just saying, "Yeah, my theory can account for X, Y, and Z." He doesn't want to have his ideas tested, because it will take an independent referee about 5 seconds to spot the flaws in his argument.

For example, he says his hydroplate theory is correct and the earth is not 4.6 billion years old.  Fair enough, would you care to refute the entire branch of radiometric dating, cosmology, and earth science? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and he doesn't have it. His premise that most elements that make up comets aren't found in space seems to ignore the fact that many of them are found during star system formation. His only source of water for these comets is from earth, but he doesn't even do basic calculations of how much water it took to form these comets, or take into account that there are other objects within our own solar system that could have contributed. And it goes on, and on. This is sloppy scholarship pure and simple.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well we've tackled some of the creation arguments.  What ID argument  do you think is the most well supported by evidence? IC, EF, the flagellum, the immune system?

< Here is a good discussion about why we don't take them seriously. >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,21:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



no, it's evidence of her mind constantly spinning rationalities and projections to hold together a system of compartmentalizations Frankenstein would be proud of.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,21:16

FtK:



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

You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.  You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent.  Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.

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



I haven't noticed that explaining things in terms FtK understands actually makes any difference in FtK's behavior. So it seems to me that the point to be made is that FtK is an unreliable source of information.

Nor is the point something about the broad topic of common descent. What is at issue in this exchange is FtK's flat assertion that macroevolutionary change doesn't happen and that humans cannot even induce such changes. As it turns out, humans have multiple ways of inducing precisely the sort of changes that FtK asserted cannot happen and cannot be approached by humans. Confronted with that news, FtK further questioned whether polyploidy happened outside of flowering plants, a clear digression, but one with a clear empirical counterexample.

Even some cursory web browsing starting with "hyla versicolor" as a search phrase reveals quite a number of sources that explains what tetraploidy is and how H. versicolor is related to its parent species. That work has been done, and is readily available. Many of those pages offer the bibliographic data for the peer-reviewed articles that examine this example of vertebrate tetraploidy. So unless FtK wants to come to some sort of arrangement for her tutelage (I accept PayPal), I will give the demanded free tutorial (which will be ignored) a pass.

Yes, I provided no picture book showing differences in orchid morphology when comparing tetraploid daughter species to diploid parents. Of course, this information is so commonplace among orchid fanciers and geneticists (Dr. Henry Wallbrunn, my genetics professor, was both) that finding explicit information of a tutorial nature online is a bit challenging. That still doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Yes, FtK, you do know squat about this topic, and anyone listening to your claims that macroevolutionary changes don't happen and humans can't even induce such was ill-served by you. Yet I have heard nothing concerning retraction of the false claims, nor anything that would indicate that you will not be offering the very same falsehoods tonight, next week, or whenever you might find it convenient to do so. Instead, we have what appears to be an example of intellectual extortion, 'Tutor me; take up a bunch of your time, or I'll feel justified in continuing just as I have, and may do so anyway.'
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,21:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
intellectual extortion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



like it.
Posted by: Tom on June 24 2007,23:30

Pssst Ftk.  If the creation scientists that you so adore can disprove The Theory of Evolution, guess what will happen?  If I'm not mistaken, I do believe they will win some sort of Noble Prize and become world famous overnight.  But keep this a secret because we don't want them to find out. ;)
Posted by: Ftk on June 25 2007,00:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, I just got back from camping in Wyoming (pictures to be uploaded later), where we saw lots of neat critters, including moose. I found myself wondering how Noah handled (and fed!) those quys on the Ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don’t think it’s as miraculous an event as one might think, but hell will freeze over before I discuss that one further.  I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between what you say in this comment, and what a theistic evolutionist would say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must have linked to the wrong comment...I don’t see anything in that post that has anything to do with what a TE might say.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wouldn’t even know where to begin.  On second thought, I’ve mentioned one of them on this thread already.  The picture series of a little microbe evolving on it’s own...get real.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be. So, let's just leave it that, shall we?

At the risk of derailing this thread (again) into a discussion of religion, I think a couple of things need to be pointed out. Please understand, FtK, I am NOT asking you to discuss religion; I AM asking you to reflect on why nobody here (except yourself) considers you to be "open-minded".

Please contrast how you approach issues of religion and science. In your religious views, you apparently believe, based on what you have heard from authority figures (unless, of course, you are fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Geek and other languages not including Portuguese) several totally illogical and unsupported things. Those would include the notion of a creator God who made humans and then got very irritated when they disobeyed his commands. To show his irritation, He did many harsh things not only to the sinners but to all of their descendants. But to prove His benevolence, He decided to send himself (aka his son) to tortured and killed in order for him to be able to forgive the descendants (who were not guilty of the original crime). Back off a bit from that stuff and ask yourself

1) Is that logical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m not so sure that God  “did many harsh things” to “show his irritation” when “people disobeyed his commands” in the way that you seem to believe it panned out.    Free will exists, and though most of us inherently know good from evil, we are tempted on a daily basis to fuck up.  Regardless of whether you believe this is due to evolutionary causes or free will provided by the Creator, it’s a fact.  We obviously need rules given as a reminder as to how we should behave.  Judges, courts, laws, etc. exist even today so I don’t know why it is so odd to think that God would not provide a set of laws and guidelines to follow that would aid in leading a productive life.  Obviously, the mistakes that we make even today affect us and our descendants, and it seems clear that God pointed this out several times to the people of Israel...you fuck up, your actions are going to affect others besides yourself.  

Yes, God sent His son to be tortured and killed for the sins of all believers.  We all sin irregardless of whether we were in the garden or not.  I think of God as a father figure, and any loving father would lay down his life for his child.  I’m not sure there is a greater love than that which a parent has for their child.  This ultimate sacrifice is something that on a human level we can understand and appreciate.  Perhaps that is why God chose this particular scenario.  

We can certainly question whether the creator should have come up with a more “logical” plan, but if there is an ultimate Creator and we are allowed the free will to lead our lives as we see fit, it wouldn’t matter what His ultimate plan entailed....there would always be those who would believe it to be illogical, unfair, or insane.  

And, please don’t think for even one second that I haven’t considered all of these issues before.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) What is the factual and verifiable evidence for that story?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mercy....where on earth would I start.  I guess the problem for me is that after searching endlessly for evidence for and against this “story”, I simply can’t reject it because the evidence that supports scripture is stronger than  the arguments against it.  If you want me to share that evidence, you’re in for a very long ride.  It would also mean that I would have to further address my views about religion (which is something you have stated several times you do not want to discuss).  If you want me to point you to several good books on the topic, let me know privately.  I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to occur.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, there is no “logical, factual, and verifiable evidence” for the blob story.  You can give me examples of simple microevolutionary changes for eternity, but that doesn’t give me verifiable evidence for a blob being accountable for the information and complexity we observe in nature today.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I could ask you the same thing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Back atcha again.  You’re certainly skeptical about religious beliefs while admitting you don’t have much background on the topic.  Yet, you unquestioningly accept that all aspects of the ToE are supported by logical, factual, and verifiable evidence.

BTW, I question religious claims in the same way I question scientific claims.  I took a very in-depth look at biblical history with a group about 5 years ago and questioned my instructors to no end.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NB - Please don't use this as a jumping off point to discuss your religious beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Goodness no, I wouldn’t do that.  I certainly wouldn’t want to have to make you consider how close minded you are about matters that don’t pertain to science.   In other words... Dude, do you need a mirror?
Posted by: Ftk on June 25 2007,00:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,21:16)
FtK:

 

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

You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.  You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent.  Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.

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



I haven't noticed that explaining things in terms FtK understands actually makes any difference in FtK's behavior. So it seems to me that the point to be made is that FtK is an unreliable source of information.

Nor is the point something about the broad topic of common descent. What is at issue in this exchange is FtK's flat assertion that macroevolutionary change doesn't happen and that humans cannot even induce such changes. As it turns out, humans have multiple ways of inducing precisely the sort of changes that FtK asserted cannot happen and cannot be approached by humans. Confronted with that news, FtK further questioned whether polyploidy happened outside of flowering plants, a clear digression, but one with a clear empirical counterexample.

Even some cursory web browsing starting with "hyla versicolor" as a search phrase reveals quite a number of sources that explains what tetraploidy is and how H. versicolor is related to its parent species. That work has been done, and is readily available. Many of those pages offer the bibliographic data for the peer-reviewed articles that examine this example of vertebrate tetraploidy. So unless FtK wants to come to some sort of arrangement for her tutelage (I accept PayPal), I will give the demanded free tutorial (which will be ignored) a pass.

Yes, I provided no picture book showing differences in orchid morphology when comparing tetraploid daughter species to diploid parents. Of course, this information is so commonplace among orchid fanciers and geneticists (Dr. Henry Wallbrunn, my genetics professor, was both) that finding explicit information of a tutorial nature online is a bit challenging. That still doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Yes, FtK, you do know squat about this topic, and anyone listening to your claims that macroevolutionary changes don't happen and humans can't even induce such was ill-served by you. Yet I have heard nothing concerning retraction of the false claims, nor anything that would indicate that you will not be offering the very same falsehoods tonight, next week, or whenever you might find it convenient to do so. Instead, we have what appears to be an example of intellectual extortion, 'Tutor me; take up a bunch of your time, or I'll feel justified in continuing just as I have, and may do so anyway.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, okay Wes...whatever.   I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE?  The attitude must be a prerequisite.
Posted by: argystokes on June 25 2007,00:59

Beautiful avatar, Tom!
Posted by: creeky belly on June 25 2007,01:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Refer to the first part. This is a forum, not Bio 101. Get off your lazy ass and RTFM. Wes has spent years studying creationist claims and their evidence, the least you could do is become familiar with basic biology.

I don't know why you're so angry; you were talking out of your ass and Wes called you out. Yeah, you're absolutely right, we've never seen this type of dishonesty from a creationist before. We should show you extra patience since you clearly refuse to read and attempt to comprehend basic biological tenets. Where can I sign up for that? Give us a break or you'll receive the same treatment as Afdave.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,01:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, okay Wes...whatever.   I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you've ever taken college classes, did you talk to your prof like that? Is that what seems to have soured you on learning?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

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



But how would you even know?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,02:50

FtK:



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

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

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



Your claim was that humans cannot induce macroevolutionary change. The first two links I provided, and which you self-admittedly did not follow, showed that there are at least two mechanisms by which humans can, with predictable results, induce polyploid changes in karyotype, which is usually sufficient to produce reduced fertility or complete infertility between parent and daughter species. How exactly are those supposed to "suck"? Be specific, this is *your* claim after all, and it looks like rather than retracting false claims, you are heading toward simple abandonment.

If you want respect, it is best to start out with giving some yourself. That's been notably absent in your interactions, so why exactly you feel at this late date that you deserve far more respect than you've ever shown escapes me. Hurling insults hardly makes that outcome more likely.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,02:58

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)
Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahaha

It's funny but you went on and on and on about speculation being taught as fact to college kids, and when pushed you fail to bring an example (apart from the "blob 2 man" picture) worthy of dicussion.

You "blob" example is pure argument from incredulity and rightly should be ignored.

Now, as you have insisted that speculation is being taught as fact to college kids, please give us an example or never repeat that claim again.

Oh, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious?

hahahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,03:17

< FtK's original claim. >

< My initial response. >



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

So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that < colchicine > and < overpressure > fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.

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



Note that there is nothing remotely objectionable there.

< FtK's reply: >



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

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?  I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.

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



The reply demonstrated that not even the original web-based materials provided were explored. Is that indicative of respect?

Then, there is the context of the contemporaneous discussion FtK is having concerning Walter Brown's book, especially < this comment: >



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

Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

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



Couple that with FtK's behavior in our latest exchange, and I think that the rest becomes quite explicable.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 25 2007,04:25

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45)
I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, because all that evidence over 150 years in practically all fields of science can easily be dismissed by the cunning argument about how a boat that couldn't even come close to holding all the animals and would have sank right away into flood waters that would have had a tricky time getting there managed to do it all because of one man and his family.

Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,05:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go on then.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 25 2007,06:53

Well, although this discussion has gone where it was doomed to go, it has served a purpose. FTK got pissed and blew her cover:

Before:

"Oh my goodness! TOE is very intersting and I love reading all about science, but I just don't think they have all the friggin' answers. Mercy me! We need to gather more evidence, and I suspect the answer lies in the middle. I don't know why you think this has necessarily to do with religion! Golly! Oops, got to drop these pot holders and go to my son's baseball game! See ya!"

After:

"No way I'm going to accept that a goddamn BLOB crawled around and became MAN, regardless of what evidence you present. Not in a million fucking years. Just remember that God was capable of arranging things any way he wanted and that Christ died on the Cross for your sins."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,07:12

Here's a couple for you then FTK.

a) Do you think aliens exist?
b) If so, did they potentially evolve from a blob?
c) If not, did gawd make them whole too? Like what he did for us, according to you.
d) If so, did jesus also die for their sins or did they get their own version of jesus, as it were, locally? Alien jesus?
e) If they did not get their own version of jesus then how fast does jesus's sin forgiving ray's travel? Does it even forgive aliens? Lets say it travels at teh speed of light. If an alien race is 2500 light years away are they as yet unforgiven? And in 500 years they'll be forgiven because jesus died for their sins here? Is that how it works?
f) When these aliens, 2000 years after getting jesus' forgivin rays start to get our TV and RADIO, do you think they'll be happy or sad about what humanity has become in those 2000 years.

And FTK,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try reading the links you are given before more outbursts like that. It's not a very Christian response now is it? :) The information is out there, all you have to do is look.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,07:20

FtK:



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

The attitude must be a prerequisite.

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



An earlier influence would have been at Texas A&M, where the Aggie Code of Honor is:



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

An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do.

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



That's short enough for an Aggie to memorize.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 25 2007,07:50

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)
Yeah, okay Wes...whatever.   I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE?  The attitude must be a prerequisite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation.

Boo Hoo. I don't feel like doing the actual research myself because 1) theres no way i would understand it 2) doing so would cause me to have to explain why I think the evidence isn't viable 3) I'd much rather play the victim card
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,07:55

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 25 2007,07:50)
Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)
Yeah, okay Wes...whatever.   I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE?  The attitude must be a prerequisite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation.

Boo Hoo. I don't feel like doing the actual research myself because 1) theres no way i would understand it 2) doing so would cause me to have to explain why I think the evidence isn't viable 3) I'd much rather play the victim card
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, and not doing it is the easy option.

Still waiting for those examples of speculation being taught as fact to college students FTK.....

You are never too old to learn FTK.
Posted by: Mike PSS on June 25 2007,08:10

Ftk,

I've asked a simple question that doesn't involve technical scientific knowledge, only author intent.

"Why do you feel the need to challange the present scientific understanding about the Oort cloud?"

What is it about the present explanation that you disagree with?

Lenny gave an answer from his old playbook but I would like to hear it from you.

The reason I ask is simple.  For you, or me, or anyone to challange an established principle (like the existence of the Oort cloud) there must be some overwhelming reason to put this challange forward.  In scientific investigation (read research) the reason to challange established, published, principles is usually because of evidence or scholorship that shows the past principles lacking in explanatory power w.r.t. the most recent discoveries.

Now, WHY do YOU feel the need to challange the existence of the Oort cloud?

You could even C&P from the sources that you use, but I think it's reasonable for me to ask this.
Posted by: Ftk on June 25 2007,08:24

I read the links Wes provided...I didn't comprehend how those examples can produce changes in morphology...simple as that.  I asked for an explanation in laymen's terms, but I guess that was too much to ask.

So, then I lost my temper because I do not appreciate Wes's attitude.  He seems to believe that it is okay to belittle anything or anyone who questions the ToE, yet when someone does the same to him, he cries foul.  

It is irritating as well that he seems to condone behavior like that displayed by Lenny Flank.  As a major contributor to a science forum, it would seem that he would try to keep guys like Flank at bay.  

So, I apologize for the excessive use of the work "fuck" in my posts last night.  It was late and I was irritated with the attitude.  I was trying my best to explain that I don't see how these examples explain how macroevolution is responsible for the immense changes that had to take place in order for a microbe to produce the design we see in nature today.  I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 25 2007,08:28

Re mooses on the Ark            
Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45)
 
I don’t think it’s as miraculous an event as one might think, but hell will freeze over before I discuss that one further.  I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'd like to hear that too. Don't forget to include saltwater critters like blue whales, etc.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between what you say in this comment, and what a theistic evolutionist would say?
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must have linked to the wrong comment...I don’t see anything in that post that has anything to do with what a TE might say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Then you need to read your own writings more carefully. As I pointed out < here >, icefish must have evolved from an ancestor with good globin genes (as well as lots of other genes that are different from the current genes in the icefish). That is what you call "macroevolution" (aka speciation in this instance). As I recall, you are on record as saying that you can accept "microevolution" but not macroevolution. TEs have no problem with macroevolution. Please explain this confusion. Thanks.            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldn’t even know where to begin.  On second thought, I’ve mentioned one of them on this thread already.  The picture series of a little microbe evolving on it’s own...get real.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Sorry I missed that post; can you provide a link? And I'm also sorry to point out that even if it is true, one example is not really enough, based on statements like  "a lot of it is speculation", and "I wouldn't even know where to begin". There must be lots more than just one...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, there is no “logical, factual, and verifiable evidence” for the blob story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And nobody said that there is. If you haven't learned by now, biogenensis is not part of evolutionary theory. Nobody is trying to tell you that science understands biogenesis. Let's stick to science like macroevolution and common descent. These are backed up by evidence, supported by almost all authorities in the field, and denied by you.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded???  

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


I guess I could ask you the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Unlike you, I can (and will) answer it. I approach everything the same way. If there is evidence and logic behind it, I can accept it. If there is no evidence or if it defies logic, I can't. If new evidence comes up, I can change my mind. So now it's your turn to answer the question. How can you claim to be open-minded when you acccept one viewpoint blindly and profess deep (but ignorant) skepticism about another viewpoint?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas.        

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


Back atcha again.  You’re certainly skeptical about religious beliefs while admitting you don’t have much background on the topic.  Yet, you unquestioningly accept that all aspects of the ToE are supported by logical, factual, and verifiable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Baloney on both counts. I have plenty of "religious background". I did say once that I don't know a lot about other religions; that is a very different thing. Words have meanings, and I use them carefully. I do contend that my religious background is irrelevant in my work as a scientist. Irrelevant is not the same as non-existent. Words matter. Secondly (unlike you), I don't accept anything "unquestioningly". I could give you lots of examples of things that I thought were true when I was a graduate student and which are now known to be wrong based on new evidence. I don't still believe things that I know are wrong. And I include aspects of evolutionary theory in that one. The problem (for you) is that basic evolutionary theory has only been strengthened by new evidence, not weakened. If you have new evidence that weakens it, please share that with us here.

Then go find that mirror.
Posted by: deejay on June 25 2007,08:36

from Ftk:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,08:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,08:24)
I was trying my best to explain that I don't see how these examples explain how macroevolution is responsible for the immense changes that had to take place in order for a microbe to produce the design we see in nature today.  I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm confused. Are you saying that there was or was not design in the "original" microbe?

The "design" we see in nature today is the same "design" present in nature before humans existed.

I.E none at all.
Posted by: Tom on June 25 2007,09:12

Sorry for digressing, but



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Beautiful avatar, Tom!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks argystokes!  It's always nice to meet another C&H fan.  By the way, nice signature line. ;)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Ftk debate.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 25 2007,09:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Over at PT I asked a variation of this of Mark Hausam.  But the comment had five links and was caught by the spam filter.  I was also extremely snide, sarcastic, and rude and so I think Nick was disinclined to remove it from the filter.  I would like to ask FtK this question too.

What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood.  If you feel you need a better question I will type out the long version complete with links and pic's and clarifying information and clarifying questions.  But this is the essential question.  It just requires a single one word answer.  Can you answer it?

Sincerely,
Paul
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,09:37

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 25 2007,09:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Over at PT I asked a variation of this of Mark Hausam.  But the comment had five links and was caught by the spam filter.  I was also extremely snide, sarcastic, and rude and so I think Nick was disinclined to remove it from the filter.  I would like to ask FtK this question to.

What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood.  If you feel you need a better question I will type out the long version complete with links and pic's and clarifying information and clarifying questions.  But this is the essential question.  It just requires a single one word answer.  Can you answer it?

Sincerely,
Paul
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a great question, and one that should be asked of AFDave over at IIDB.

< http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202259&page=15 >
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 25 2007,09:45

Well then I might just have to register at IIDB to ask it, but that can't happen 'til this evening.  However, for AirFarceDave I will have to make it the long version.  It has lots of assumptions and he likes assumptions.

added in edit:  You got a deal OldMan.  I just glanced at that thread and would love to ask afd that question.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2007,09:51

Quote (deejay @ June 25 2007,08:36)
from Ftk:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure she questions the bible on a daily basis. Why doesn't Genesis talk about bacterial life?
Posted by: deejay on June 25 2007,10:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2007,09:51)
 
Quote (deejay @ June 25 2007,08:36)
from Ftk:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure she questions the bible on a daily basis. Why doesn't Genesis talk about bacterial life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure Walt Brown has an answer for that one.  But that darned atheist conspiracy is keeping him from publishing it in the journals.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 25 2007,10:56

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 25 2007,09:27)
What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mentuhotep IV. I presume it must be since he seems to fit what I believe are the generally agreed dates of the flood (roughly at least)

Died 1991 BCE. His death even signalled the end of the 11th dynasty. Unfortunately he was immediately replaced by Amenemhat I, who began the 12th dynasty.

Whoops.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,11:02

FtK:



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

I didn't comprehend how those examples can produce changes in morphology

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



So what? That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the status of your (still unretracted) claim that humans cannot induce macroevolutionary change.

But I'll toss something in for the lurkers...

Horizontal evolution, or macroevolutionary change if you like, involves changes in diversity. The essential characteristic here is the evolution of reproductive isolation. This may, or may not, involve morphological change. Morphological change as a component of reproductive isolation is at the basis of the "lock-and-key" hypothesis concerning insect speciation, but there is < research > that goes some way to disputing the significance of morphological change to reproductive isolation even within those groups where this has been accepted as a good explanation of the evidence. And then we come to one of my very favorite examples, < cryptic speciation in pseudoscorpions >. Zeh and Zeh discovered this complex of sibling species that have complete postzygotic infertility (they cannot produce offspring in crosses between sibling species) while retaining shared morphological traits across the sibling species.  Genetically, too, the species are very similar, with the study finding differences between the populations at two alleles. Zeh and Zeh noted the high reliability of assignment of individuals to their correct population using genetic fingerprinting (~1% error rate), and the relative unreliability of using morphological characters (~26% error rate for male external morphology, and ~13% error rate for male genitalia morphology). The take-home message: don't assume that similar morphology implies reproductive compatibility between allopatric populations. The pseudoscorpions examined illustrate that morphology is not a necessary factor in establishing reproductive isolation, that major genetic rearrangements don't appear to be necessary to driving reproductive isolation, and that speciation may be far more common than has been assumed on grounds of morphological similarity of disparate populations.

(I took a look, and I think my first use of this example was on 1995/06/04. And, Lenny, I think that was my own find.)

David W. Zeh and Jeanne A. Zeh. 1994. When Morphology Misleads: Interpopulation Uniformity in Sexual Selection Masks Genetic Divergence in Harlequin Beetle-Riding Pseudoscorpion Populations.
Evolution Vol. 48, No. 4  (Aug., 1994):1168-1182.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 25 2007,11:09

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Gosh, I keep looking in this textbook Dave gave me and staring at that little microbe and the series of pictures that supposedly respresents how that little sucker looked when it started on its evolutionary journey.  

I'm wondering if someone threw some pixie dust on it to get it to be able to do something that resulted in everything we observe in the world today. I mean, color me impressed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A pretty good description of the Intelligent Design hypothesis.  And as ridiculous as you intend it to sound.
Posted by: blipey on June 25 2007,12:48

Now that Wes has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ftk lied outright in a previous post, can we start a pool on her retraction?

I'll take the Tuesday after the Second Coming.

Also, I know you'll never do it, but can we ban all comments that use quotation marks around anything that isn't actually a quote?

I realize this will significantly reduce the amount of humor we see from Ftk, but it will streamline the thread.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,13:17

FtK:



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

It is irritating as well that he seems to condone behavior like that displayed by Lenny Flank.  As a major contributor to a science forum, it would seem that he would try to keep guys like Flank at bay.

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



We have a rule around here that if you want to take up issues of moderation, you do it via private channels like PMs or email. First warning.

Oh, and BTW, Lenny had a one-week posting timeout from around June 11 to 18. A brief trip to Google brings up this representative nugget, too:



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

From source file 96031902.evo
Date: 19 Mar 96  08:42:37
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Nothing scientific #3©

AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 63f9f30a
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8943EA6B

In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
LF> And it will probably get you a nasty-gram from our monitor(s).

His previous message collected the nasty-gram.

While I'm doling them out, though, let me remind you that the
abrupt Anglo-Saxonisms are out (you don't need to repeat the
phrasing), and moderation messages are on-topic only when
coming from the moderators.

I seem to have missed the purported scientific content of your
message as well.


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



FtK does seem to have a consistent talent for asserting exactly the contra-factual position in just about anything she says, even in something as checkable as who has been allowed to post when and whether I've had moderation moments with Lenny Flank. FtK may want to consider that she would appear better informed if after she has written a post, she simply went through it and inverted every single claim she made.

I've just checked, and there is indeed room in the PM folder for incoming messages.
Posted by: Mike PSS on June 25 2007,13:33

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2007,14:17)
I've just checked, and there is indeed room in the PM folder for incoming messages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeee you "just" checked.

Oooooops.  I just got Blipey mad at me.

Or is this comment along the lines of...

"I must have money left in my account because I still have blank checks."
Posted by: stephenWells on June 25 2007,13:57

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:58)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:52)

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.  Why would they?  Minds are set irregardless of the questions plaguing the theory.  The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you remember when Prusiner claimed that infectious proteins could produce diseases without any genetic component, completely against all the expectations of medicine and biology, and he was laughed at and blackballed and never allowed to publish anything?

Oh wait, that didn't happen, he got the Nobel Prize for discovering prions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,14:35



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

Or is this comment along the lines of...

"I must have money left in my account because I still have blank checks."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean...

that's not how it works? ? ?

:O
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You really believe it's one or the other, don't you?
Posted by: blipey on June 25 2007,15:17

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 25 2007,13:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2007,14:17)
I've just checked, and there is indeed room in the PM folder for incoming messages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeee you "just" checked.

Oooooops.  I just got Blipey mad at me.

Or is this comment along the lines of...

"I must have money left in my account because I still have blank checks."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nicely done, sir.  :D
Posted by: Mike PSS on June 25 2007,15:45

Quote (blipey @ June 25 2007,16:17)
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 25 2007,13:33)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2007,14:17)
I've just checked, and there is indeed room in the PM folder for incoming messages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeee you "just" checked.

Oooooops.  I just got Blipey mad at me.

Or is this comment along the lines of...

"I must have money left in my account because I still have blank checks."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nicely done, sir.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahahaha.
I couldn't resist.

So much for streamlining.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,16:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, please don’t think for even one second that I haven’t considered all of these issues before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed, I had rather been making the point that you had done this endless times, perhaps on daily basis.

However, you never intended, nor intend, to actually consider an actual bit of scientific evidence when you "consider these issues". Your mind prefers to cherrypick concepts that agree with your internal rationalizations.

nothing more.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 25 2007,17:27

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)
Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, a five-minute Google search would settle that, wouldn't it.

Are you (1) too lazy or (2) too stupid  to do that.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 25 2007,17:32

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,08:24)
It is irritating as well that he seems to condone behavior like that displayed by Lenny Flank.  As a major contributor to a science forum, it would seem that he would try to keep guys like Flank at bay.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sniffle) (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.  Wassamatter, FTK --- can't find your Banninator Button?  Gonna stomp out and leave all in a huff --- again?

Bye.  (shrug)

How do you carry that massive martyr complex around with you, FTK?  With a wheelbarrow?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,17:41

Lenny Flank:



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

Well, a five-minute Google search would settle that, wouldn't it.

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



Or a pair of five-second click-throughs on the provided links.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2007,18:37

I think that, for the benefit of the lurkers again, I should mention that science is not endlessly open to every idea that has ever been hatched. In complete ignorance, one may not know which of an infinite number of propositions actually describes the universe we experience. But that experience starts cutting out swaths of counter-factual assertions. For example, any claim that requires that "humans use a methane metabolism" is just wrong, and it is easy to see that any assertion that we must be "open" to the possibility that the claim is true is not just mistaken, but wrong-headed. Science famously cannot go directly to a claim that some concept is true, but it can decide, with the same confidence we hold in the observations that provide the pertinent evidence, that some concept is false. Without this characteristic of science, we would forever be arguing over whether phlogiston or thermodynamics was the better explanation, when we know now that phlogiston is wrong and will not be making a comeback.

Intelligent design creationism advocates are famous for offering new definitions of science, definitions that are carefully constructed to permit and protect theistic explanations within science. The permitting occurs by phrasing that science is comprised of logical explanations of natural phenomena, while dumping any reference to the need for those explanations to be testable in light of the evidence.

The protecting gets less attention, but it is related to how this comment started off. That occurs by having the new definitions of science dismiss any idea that science can actually decide any issue. That's right, the practice of science, under the new definition, doesn't actually change the state of our knowledge. Everything that was a proposition worthy of consideration yesterday is still just that way today, and will continue to be so forever. In this bizarro world, scientists can hold opinions about which explanations they prefer, but in the end these are merely alternative interpretations of observations, none of them privileged in any way over any other.

Of course, this benevolent attitude toward hopeless nonsense only lasts so long as it is a preferred piece of hopeless nonsense being considered. And therein lies the brilliance of < Bobby Henderson's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" meme >, whereby the utter hypocrisy of the Kansas State Board of Education was laid bare for the world to see. By asking Kansas to give equal time and deference to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in Kansas classrooms, Henderson gave the world the chance to see various conservative antievolution board members go through a variety of histrionics where they sought to exclude Henderson's idea as "silly" while insisting that science had no right to proclaim judgment on their own notions. One member asked that a teacher's display of a Flying Spaghetti Monster drawing be removed from a classroom door;  the administration backed the teacher, and the drawing stayed in place.

To sum up, the scientific attitude is that we can actually learn things through experience that cause us to prefer explanations that are consistent with the evidence and (here's the part antievolutionists hate) treat the explanations that are contradicted by the evidence as wrong, not merely out of favor or a matter of personal interpretation. Consider it another way in which you can identify the next morph of antievolution; they have to try to gut science in order to make science safe for their untestable, unaccountable, and narrow sectarian views.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,18:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, any claim that requires that "humans use a methane metabolism" is just wrong,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed.  Mel Brooks tested that theory in his documentary film: Blazing Saddles.

< http://www.jibjab.com/view/74595 >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,18:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
treat the explanations that are contradicted by the evidence as wrong,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'not even wrong', wrt to creationism and ID.

They're actually useless when we consider them from either an explanatory or predictive standpoint.
Posted by: blipey on June 25 2007,18:54

Now that was as good a comment to this thread as can be done, Wes.

Very nice, but as you said, it is for the lurkers.  I give it exactly zero chance that Ftk will even address one sentence of it.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on June 25 2007,19:23

Yes, Wesley: very well said indeed.

Perhaps FtK does serve some sort of useful purpose, beyond her status as an object of humor and edification of the lurksters...
Posted by: csadams on June 25 2007,20:32

[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,20:37

Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)
[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No on the first.

kinda on the second.

evidently she found a picture in the text summarizing the idea of common descent she found objectionable out of pure incredulity on her part.

It doesn't really answer the question posed by Alby, but technically it's at least a "response".

Arden's request was never positively responded to.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 25 2007,21:16

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 25 2007,20:37)
 
Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)
[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No on the first.

kinda on the second.

evidently she found a picture in the text summarizing the idea of common descent she found objectionable out of pure incredulity on her part.

It doesn't really answer the question posed by Alby, but technically it's at least a "response".

Arden's request was never positively responded to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did she really ever address it directly? I've been looking on this thread (and others) for that alleged response, but all I found was < this oblique reference. > If there is another place where she listed some real examples of unwarranted speculation in that book (especially if it includes a figure number or page number), I'd appreciate the pointer. Particularly since I happen to have a copy of the same textbook that I sent her, and I'd like to see it for myself...
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,21:22

nope. that oblique reference is what I was referring to, where she expounds on her incredulity when faced with a pictoral representation of common descent.

It sure sounded a lot like a projection of the "goo to you" scream of the terminal creationist to me.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 25 2007,21:29

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 25 2007,21:22)
nope. that oblique reference is what I was referring to, where she expounds on her incredulity when faced with a pictoral representation of common descent.

It sure sounded a lot like a projection of the "goo to you" scream of the terminal creationist to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, that comment didn't really address my request for some examples of unwarranted "speculation" in the textbook; I can't find any figure in the book that depicts the process as she describes it... So, FtK, if you are still with us, please let me know the figure or page number where you found this offensive image.

Thanks in advance
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 25 2007,21:32

yeah, like i said, it was a response, but not an answer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,21:51

Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)
[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Back on June 10th, FTK admitted to this (which I wrote):



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

a) you have 'read' articles, but you didn't understand most of them, mentally rejected them, and they made so little of an impression on you, you really can't name any of them.

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


Posted by: J-Dog on June 26 2007,11:23

Wow!  I took a couple days off for a baseball tournament, and next thing you know, all hell breaks loose!  Well at least a little Walt Brown Flood HydroPlate crazy talk....

FTK - even other Creos don't believe Brown's knucklehead
theories.  Read the following link thrashing Brown by an OEC:

< http://lordibelieve.org/wbrown.doc >
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 26 2007,11:35

FTK,
I have a serious question. What is it about people who are in your life position that make them want to believe the most far fetched and least supported ideas by people like Brown or Ham or Hovind? Some who's methods and research are so poor they're laughed off by even other creationists and yet dismiss the findings of the people who are the best educated, most experienced and happen to occupy the vast vast majority of the scientific population?

I know you consider yourself an open minded person, and ignoring your propensity to show that you are anything but, are you so insecure in the ability of your own mind to process the information that you have to fall back to the lowest common denominator of, and I use this term in the most loose definition possible, Science?
Posted by: blipey on June 26 2007,11:53

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 26 2007,11:35)
FTK,
I have a serious question. What is it about people who are in your life position that make them want to believe the most far fetched and least supported ideas by people like Brown or Ham or Hovind? Some who's methods and research are so poor they're laughed off by even other creationists and yet dismiss the findings of the people who are the best educated, most experienced and happen to occupy the vast vast majority of the scientific population?

I know you consider yourself an open minded person, and ignoring your propensity to show that you are anything but, are you so insecure in the ability of your own mind to process the information that you have to fall back to the lowest common denominator of, and I use this term in the most loose definition possible, Science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue the blather.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 26 2007,11:55

Quote (blipey @ June 26 2007,11:53)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 26 2007,11:35)
FTK,
I have a serious question. What is it about people who are in your life position that make them want to believe the most far fetched and least supported ideas by people like Brown or Ham or Hovind? Some who's methods and research are so poor they're laughed off by even other creationists and yet dismiss the findings of the people who are the best educated, most experienced and happen to occupy the vast vast majority of the scientific population?

I know you consider yourself an open minded person, and ignoring your propensity to show that you are anything but, are you so insecure in the ability of your own mind to process the information that you have to fall back to the lowest common denominator of, and I use this term in the most loose definition possible, Science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue the blather.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I know......


I'd love an honest answer but....at least maybe it will be entertaining.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 26 2007,12:09

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 26 2007,11:35)
FTK,
I have a serious question. What is it about people who are in your life position that make them want to believe the most far fetched and least supported ideas by people like Brown or Ham or Hovind? Some who's methods and research are so poor they're laughed off by even other creationists and yet dismiss the findings of the people who are the best educated, most experienced and happen to occupy the vast vast majority of the scientific population?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes it's helpful to remember that in Fundyworld, the alternative isn't very pleasant.

The apparent choice is Jesus and Heaven and acceptance by friends and family, or Hell and Death and Torment and ostracization and ridicule.

Reality isn't even a considered option, so one has no real choice but to grasp at any straw that happens by.  It really is a lot like trying to build a grass hut in the midst of a tornado.

When the full weight of reality and mortality lands on your head like a ton of bricks, it's a terrifyingly agonizing moment.

Been there, done that, totally understand, but I wouldn't repeat the experience for all the tea in China.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,15:03

What, no FtK in a few days?

Maybe she's been waiting for me to reappear with further discussion of Walt Brown's ebook train crash. Well, sadly FtK I haven't been able to read any more, my net went down, and it's just back, but never fear, oh pirahna one, I shall continue where I left off.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,15:14

I'm willing to let it slide, 'cause it's just so damn funny, but really, she gives piranha a bad name.

piranha make far better decisions about what to attack beforehand.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,15:28

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,15:14)
I'm willing to let it slide, 'cause it's just so damn funny, but really, she gives piranha a bad name.

piranha make far better decisions about what to attack beforehand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I do hope she doesnt take it as a breakdown in civility, I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,16:04

well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.
Posted by: blipey on June 26 2007,16:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do rather think I'm going to have to look up conversation.  It must not mean what I think it means.

I do wish that she would have an actual conversation with anyone sometime.  It might be truly entertaining.  But, she just can't get herself to talk to anyone.  All the people she already knows and shares a worldview with don't really provide conversation--just reinforcement, not the same thing at all.

Of course, all of us who treat her as a piranha aren't worthy of a conversation because she's already said everything that needs to be said to us (though where she might have said these things will remain enshrouded for eternity).  She even closed down a conversation that jc and I were having at her blog because she didn't like the way it was going.  JC being, ostensibly, on her side and behaving so strangely that even Ftk realized he was hurting the cause, it was time to close it down, despite her pet peeve of civility not being a problem in the thread.

It's sad to think of going through your entire life and never having a real conversation.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:10

Quote (blipey @ June 26 2007,16:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do rather think I'm going to have to look up conversation.  It must not mean what I think it means.

I do wish that she would have an actual conversation with anyone sometime.  It might be truly entertaining.  But, she just can't get herself to talk to anyone.  All the people she already knows and shares a worldview with don't really provide conversation--just reinforcement, not the same thing at all.

Of course, all of us who treat her as a piranha aren't worthy of a conversation because she's already said everything that needs to be said to us (though where she might have said these things will remain enshrouded for eternity).  She even closed down a conversation that jc and I were having at her blog because she didn't like the way it was going.  JC being, ostensibly, on her side and behaving so strangely that even Ftk realized he was hurting the cause, it was time to close it down, despite her pet peeve of civility not being a problem in the thread.

It's sad to think of going through your entire life and never having a real conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used the word because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:14

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:04)
well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, I don't care about most of it, it's just the occasions when the thread gets away from me a bit. (In all honesty, I might need the help, I'm certain there are answers to all of the stuff in the book, but I don't always know them myself, such as the one I commented on on one of the previous pages.)
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,16:15

your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.

ah, no, through the wonders of the internet, and a decent search engine on the BBC's website, I'm guessing it's a pic of Alan Johnston.

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243170.stm >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:16

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,16:18

heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:24

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:18)
heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, well it doesn't matter.

Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

< Weird Walt Brown Letter thing. >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,16:25

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:14)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:04)
well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, I don't care about most of it, it's just the occasions when the thread gets away from me a bit. (In all honesty, I might need the help, I'm certain there are answers to all of the stuff in the book, but I don't always know them myself, such as the one I commented on on one of the previous pages.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as an alternative then, you should feel free to post a thread entirely about Brown's book, where you can freely pose any questions you have about what it says.

never know, somebody around here might have something interesting in response, beyond the standard response from the Talk Origins Archive (which you should always check first, btw).

I know that Deadman and others have taken time out to specifically research in gory detail a lot of the claims in Brown's book during their "discussions" with AirheadDave both in this forum and on dawkins.net.

asking FTK to explain something in Brown's book is no more productive than asking her to explain something in the basic biology text Alby sent her.

IOW, if you have real questions, you're wasting you time asking her for answers.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:31

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:14)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:04)
well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, I don't care about most of it, it's just the occasions when the thread gets away from me a bit. (In all honesty, I might need the help, I'm certain there are answers to all of the stuff in the book, but I don't always know them myself, such as the one I commented on on one of the previous pages.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as an alternative then, you should feel free to post a thread entirely about Brown's book, where you can freely pose any questions you have about what it says.

never know, somebody around here might have something interesting in response, beyond the standard response from the Talk Origins Archive (which you should always check first, btw).

I know that Deadman and others have taken time out to specifically research in gory detail a lot of the claims in Brown's book during their "discussions" with AirheadDave both in this forum and on dawkins.net.

asking FTK to explain something in Brown's book is no more productive than asking her to explain something in the basic biology text Alby sent her.

IOW, if you have real questions, you're wasting you time asking her for answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, thing is I do look in talk.origins (it was how I found my way here, in fact) but occasionally. VERY occasionally, they don't have the goods on something, so I ask around here. (Although admittedly, I do bring things up here if I want to hear what she has to say)

Of course, I also wish to hear FtKs opinion on it, whether she thinks these claims are any good, what happened to the Egyptians (no FtK, I haven't dropped that one yet, you said you had answers, I want 'em), and what drugs she thinks Walt Brown was smoking, because it IS only fair, and I do make sure I hear both sides of an argument. If one side is pitifully weak, of course, I expect it to get crushed, and my opinion will go to the one with more to back it up.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,16:35

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:24)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:18)
heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, well it doesn't matter.

Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

< Weird Walt Brown Letter thing. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do a search on "evolutionary algorithms" over on PT and on Pharyngula to find this discussed in MANY threads.

be warned: this will end up launching you into a far more complex discussion of actual algorithms quite rapidly.

bottom line: In the case of the link you posted, Brown is just using yet another mistaken argument based merely on incredulity, in this case his incredulity of the amount of base pairs found in human DNA.

I think there is a tangential thread on PT looking at the issue of genome size, that you might want to check out as well.

of course the issue of information and how creationists constantly misuse it wrt to genetics is covered in the TO archives:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html >

likely you will also find direct reference to the idiotic model Brown tries to use in the link you provided as well.

...and genetic algoritms are covered as well:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,16:41

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the previous avatar?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:55

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,16:41)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the previous avatar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tut tut, that was Robert DeNiro.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:56

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:24)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:18)
heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, well it doesn't matter.

Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

< Weird Walt Brown Letter thing. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do a search on "evolutionary algorithms" over on PT and on Pharyngula to find this discussed in MANY threads.

be warned: this will end up launching you into a far more complex discussion of actual algorithms quite rapidly.

bottom line: In the case of the link you posted, Brown is just using yet another mistaken argument based merely on incredulity, in this case his incredulity of the amount of base pairs found in human DNA.

I think there is a tangential thread on PT looking at the issue of genome size, that you might want to check out as well.

of course the issue of information and how creationists constantly misuse it wrt to genetics is covered in the TO archives:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html >

likely you will also find direct reference to the idiotic model Brown tries to use in the link you provided as well.

...and genetic algoritms are covered as well:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It wasn't the argument I was curious about, it was the "conversation" itself.
Posted by: Henry J on June 26 2007,16:58

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:10)
I used the word [conversation] because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe "exchange of comments"?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,16:59

Quote (Henry J @ June 26 2007,16:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:10)
I used the word [conversation] because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe "exchange of comments"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like it. Very politician.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasn't the argument I was curious about, it was the "conversation" itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oops.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,17:06

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,17:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasn't the argument I was curious about, it was the "conversation" itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,17:08

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:55)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,16:41)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the previous avatar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tut tut, that was Robert DeNiro.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

From what film?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,17:09

sorry, haven't the slightest clue for sure, but it don't sound like any conversation I ever had with any scientist, even the ones who claimed to be religious.

it also doesn't jive with any conversations resulting from work on the human genome, if you look at things like even ultra religious folk like Francis Collins (who headed the project) have to say.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,17:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:55)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,16:41)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the previous avatar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tut tut, that was Robert DeNiro.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

From what film?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe it was The Godfather Part II. I may be wrong.

[Edit] I wasn't.
Posted by: silverspoon on June 26 2007,17:09

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,17:06)
Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A creationist insurance salesman recounts a conversation with an unidentified biologist. Sounds awfully suspicious--- don’t you think?

Check out the guys web site.
< http://www.ontherightside.com/ >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,17:11

Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,17:09)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,17:06)
Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A creationist insurance salesman recounts a conversation with an unidentified biologist. Sounds awfully suspicious--- don’t you think?

Check out the guys web site.
< http://www.ontherightside.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's EXACTLY what I thought.

It does seem to have a genuine reference, but the whole thing looks dodgy.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,17:14

Ok, can't find anything on TO, but this looks awfully suspicious to me.

< This IS nonsense, isn't it? >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,17:44

Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,17:09)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,17:06)
Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A creationist insurance salesman recounts a conversation with an unidentified biologist. Sounds awfully suspicious--- don’t you think?

Check out the guys web site.
< http://www.ontherightside.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A hundred to one it's a fraud.

This is an ooooooold creationist strategy. Even Dembski's even done it on slow days when he couldn't think of anything else to post. "Oh, I've privately spoken with dozens of real important science types, and they've all told me that real scientists quit believing in evolution long ago! It's just that with the materialist Darwin police out there, they don't dare express this in public, for fear of losing their jobs!"

Also, the language of "Sam, a molecular biologist" doesn't ring true. It's got the exact same 'gee whiz, golly and shucks' tone that Caylor himself has. In other words, 'Sam' talks far more like a creationist insurance salesman than a molecular biologist.

Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.
Posted by: silverspoon on June 26 2007,18:53

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,19:46

Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,18:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, who is this Joe G of whom you speak?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,19:59

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:46)
 
Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,18:53)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, who is this Joe G of whom you speak?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Legendary anti-evolution bonehead < Joe Gallien >.

Isn't Blipey the main one here who heckles engages him? Or is Zachriel more of an expert?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,20:00

"Why are there evolutionists? It appears that not one can defend the position. IOW it appears that the position of evolutionist rests almost entirely on faith."

The first thing I saw. After blue. LOTS of blue.
Posted by: JonF on June 26 2007,20:05

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,17:24)
Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

< Weird Walt Brown Letter thing. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's your question? The meaning of the exercise of starting with a meaningful phrase, making random modifications, and (if the new phrase is meaningful), replacing the original with the new phrase?

It's meaningless. We know quite a lot about the space in which biological evolution operates, and it's not at all analogous to the space of all variations of phrases, meaningful and not meaningful. For example, many mutations of genes have no effect on whatever the genes code for (since many amino acid substitutions make no differentc), but almost all random mutations of a phrase will have an effect on its meaningfulness.

In addtion it's an argument by analogy fallacy. Analogies are for clarifiying, not for making arguments.

The "Elephant in the Room"thing, which he got from < The Biologist >, is also meaningless. If it's true, I can understand the lack of attribution to the real name; but without such attribution it's just a fairy tale.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 26 2007,20:06

Quote (JonF @ June 26 2007,20:05)
The "Elephant in the Room"thing, which he got from < The Biologist >, is also meaningless. If it's true, I can understand the lack of attribution to the real name; but without such attribution it's just a fairy tale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, that is what I was after.
Posted by: Henry J on June 26 2007,21:17

Re "He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment."

Non cents. They're porpoise is too stabilize hour planets orbit.

(At least with that claim, one would be referring to an effect the other planet(s) might actually have.)

Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on June 26 2007,21:17

You can't beat Google for the start of a nice little research project on Walt "Call Me Crazy" Brown.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_%28creationist%29 >

If you follow the links, you will see lots of previously researched work to refute the Brown's Crazy Claims™.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html >

or here:  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm

HTH :)
Posted by: snoeman on June 27 2007,00:05

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,19:59)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:46)
 
Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,18:53)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, who is this Joe G of whom you speak?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Legendary anti-evolution bonehead < Joe Gallien >.

Isn't Blipey the main one here who heckles engages him? Or is Zachriel more of an expert?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's Zachriel.  IIRC, he tried for weeks to get Joe G to even acknowledge the existence of such a concept as a nested hierarchy.  So impervious is Joe G's brain to reason, I'm not sure Zachriel even got him to type it, let alone understand the concept.
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,00:36

Oh yes, Zachriel is, hands down, the leader in JoeG protective gear.  He waded in for several weeks of serious posting (by this I mean real content--none of which Joe acknowledged).

Zachriel should win some sort of award actually, by carrying on the, uh, discussion on my blog for a while.  He lured Joe out of his own personal confines to be ridiculed in a completely separate arena.

Joe's stupidity regarding nested hierarchies is hilarious, though.  He told me that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because, wait for it...people have fathers.  That's right; try to figure that one out if you can.

His latest is that a majority of scientists don't accept ToE or CD, because, wait for it...they can't prove it.  Don't ask me what the validity of a thing has to do with people believing it, but there you go.

There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case.
Posted by: Mister DNA on June 27 2007,00:42

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,00:36)
There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't Joe G./John Paul get fired (or in trouble with his employer, at least) when it was discovered he was using the computer at work in order to harass his opponents?

I wish I had more details, but I think it happened at the NAIG or OCW boards and it was this incident that "outed" John Paul as Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,00:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I must have links to this.  He would make the worst Muslim-impersonator evah!!!
Posted by: Mister DNA on June 27 2007,01:01

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,00:47)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I must have links to this.  He would make the worst Muslim-impersonator evah!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish I could unearth something a little more tangible, but the only relevant link I could find was from the comments at < his own blog >, and that traces back to AtBC:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joseph is actually Joe Gallien, a moronic legend in the C/E discussion world and a Tard’s Tard if ever there were one. His exploits include:

Claimed to be a qualified “scientist” because he has a Bachelor of Science, Engineer Technology degree.
Claimed to be a Muslim so people wouldn’t call him a YEC
Got caught using an anonymizer and posting under *dozens* of multiple aliases so he could agree with himself and pat himself on the back
Claimed that there are alien cities on Mars and the Moon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure there are some regs here who used to be active at the NAIG boards back in the day; they could give you more details, I'm sure. I'm almost positive it was NAIG where he got outed, because John Stear was able to trace his IP address.

For the record, you're correct; he was a lousy Muslim impersonator. His schtick was basically this:

someone would say, "You bloody fundies and your YEC..." and John Paul would respond with something along the lines of, "You narrow-minded Darwinists! Sure, I regurgitate arguments from ICR, AIG and several other Christian websites, but I'm a Muslim, so there!"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,07:01

Classic FtK.

Run away when you can't stand the heat. Where are you FtK. There are a lot of unanswered questions here...

Paging FtK. Paging FtK.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2007,07:12

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,07:01)
Classic FtK.

Run away when you can't stand the heat. Where are you FtK. There are a lot of unanswered questions here...

Paging FtK. Paging FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She got enough martyrdom lately to last for a few weeks.

She'll be back when she starts jonesing again.

She's worse than a heroin addict.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,07:24

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 27 2007,07:12)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,07:01)
Classic FtK.

Run away when you can't stand the heat. Where are you FtK. There are a lot of unanswered questions here...

Paging FtK. Paging FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She got enough martyrdom lately to last for a few weeks.

She'll be back when she starts jonesing again.

She's worse than a heroin addict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe she's busy reading some peer revi.....BWAAAAAAAAHaha


nevermind.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 27 2007,08:51

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,07:01)
Paging FtK. Paging FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Optimistically, I am hoping that she is reflecting on the fact that she inadvertently adopted the point of view of a theistic evolutionist, and this did not result in her growing horns and a tail. This unexpected outcome would certainly be cause for spending some time in introspection.

That is surely at least as likely as the notion that she is spending time reading the peer-reviewed literature
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,08:57

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,08:51)
This unexpected outcome would certainly be cause for spending some time in introspection.

That is surely at least as likely as the notion that she is spending time reading the peer-reviewed literature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Hilarious
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 27 2007,10:28

Quote (Mister DNA @ June 27 2007,00:42)
 
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,00:36)
There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't Joe G./John Paul get fired (or in trouble with his employer, at least) when it was discovered he was using the computer at work in order to harass his opponents?

I wish I had more details, but I think it happened at the NAIG or OCW boards and it was this incident that "outed" John Paul as Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite bit of Joe G tardity happened when he locked horns with Andrea Bottaro at PT, and got his clock cleaned. It was hilarious, and you can read about it < here >

Bottaro sized Joe up perfectly when he said,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment. I strongly suggest you check the content of your next posts for unwarranted and self-contradictory claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,11:24

SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,11:55

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm taking the bait.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,12:04

FTK, so if, one day far far in the future, a self aware computer is created would that disprove the whole god thing for you? After all if mere molecules can become self aware that gap just got a whole lot smalller!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Chinese Room analogy is a serious problem for the view that A.I. is possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, I guess you agree with that right? From your blog post it appears so.

And Egnor also says  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But imagine that artificial intelligence could be created, and Searle is wrong. Imagine that teams of the best computer scientists, working day and night for decades, finally produced a computer that had an awareness of itself. A conscious computer, with a mind! So, finally, P.Z. Myers and I could agree on something. Myers would be right. If a computer had a mind, we could infer two things:

1) Matter is sufficient, as well as necessary, for the mind. The mind is an emergent property of matter.
2) The emergence of mind from matter requires intelligent design.

It’s not easy being a materialist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, FTK, what's your response to that then? If point 1) above is true and we can create self aware computers then we hardly need a "god" like your "god" of the bible to sort things out do we? If mere molecules can become self aware without any sort of supernatural influence then what size is that gap now? Gnats chuff? Much more probable aliens did it eh? Why invoke some supernatural entity when natural causes are sufficient.

Seems to me your attempts to prove your "god" exists only push it further out of reach.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 27 2007,12:07

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I saw that blog post earlier today. I love this sentence  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheism intrigues me to no end. It is the single most illogical conclusion about life that one can every succumb to, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we all just don't understand how logical it is to believe in a deity whom you can't detect, who instructed ancient followers to build an ark that could contain dinosaurs, whales and great white sharks, and who apparently decided that the best solution for the humans who disobeyed him would be to have them torture and kill his incarnate son. That all seems eminently logical to me...
Posted by: J-Dog on June 27 2007,12:21

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:07)
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I saw that blog post earlier today. I love this sentence    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheism intrigues me to no end. It is the single most illogical conclusion about life that one can every succumb to, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we all just don't understand how logical it is to believe in a deity whom you can't detect, who instructed ancient followers to build an ark that could contain dinosaurs, whales and great white sharks, and who apparently decided that the best solution for the humans who disobeyed him would be to have them torture and kill his incarnate son. That all seems eminently logical to me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just submitted a post to her about this... gave her the Dawkins quote about all people are atheists about all other gods except their own - atheists just take it one step further.  I wonder if she will let it through moderation?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,12:25

That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 27 2007,12:31

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,12:32

It's interesting to ponder why FTK is so totally obsessed with atheists. I suspect she's compensating for something here.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,12:32

Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 27 2007,12:35

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:32)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hypothesis is that Ian sounds too British and Dawkinsish; she doesn't want to engage in a civil conversation with someone like that. Now a caveman - that she can deal with!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,12:36

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:07)
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I saw that blog post earlier today. I love this sentence    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheism intrigues me to no end. It is the single most illogical conclusion about life that one can every succumb to, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we all just don't understand how logical it is to believe in a deity whom you can't detect, who instructed ancient followers to build an ark that could contain dinosaurs, whales and great white sharks, and who apparently decided that the best solution for the humans who disobeyed him would be to have them torture and kill his incarnate son. That all seems eminently logical to me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I always wonder, and ask people like FTK, is that why god seems to have stopped. I mean, he came along burnt some bushes, did a bit of re-decorating (teh flud) and then, 2k odd years ago just stopped. Nothing else. From hero to zero. Why?
All this action (to the point of killing all but 8 people on the planet and appearing in person at times) and then nothing at all. If you are going to be a planetary overlord then just disappearing for thousands of years is just not on!

Can't be anything to do with the general level of development can it? I mean, if you lived and died in the same 5 square miles in muddy poverty (or it's worldwide equivlient) who knows what happens thousands of miles away. Could be anything at all.

nah, just chance.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,12:41

I left a "comment" asking her why I wasn't making it through (after all, as far as I can tell, I posted before J-Dog) and that a reply would be much appriciated.

Maybe she's ended the polite conversation we were having? Shame, I was just enjoying myself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,12:43

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:36)
What I always wonder, and ask people like FTK, is that why god seems to have stopped. I mean, he came along burnt some bushes, did a bit of re-decorating (teh flud) and then, 2k odd years ago just stopped. Nothing else. From hero to zero. Why?
All this action (to the point of killing all but 8 people on the planet and appearing in person at times) and then nothing at all. If you are going to be a planetary overlord then just disappearing for thousands of years is just not on!

Can't be anything to do with the general level of development can it? I mean, if you lived and died in the same 5 square miles in muddy poverty (or it's worldwide equivlient) who knows what happens thousands of miles away. Could be anything at all.

nah, just chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the answer to this of course comes from JAD.

God is dead.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,12:48

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,12:43)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:36)
What I always wonder, and ask people like FTK, is that why god seems to have stopped. I mean, he came along burnt some bushes, did a bit of re-decorating (teh flud) and then, 2k odd years ago just stopped. Nothing else. From hero to zero. Why?
All this action (to the point of killing all but 8 people on the planet and appearing in person at times) and then nothing at all. If you are going to be a planetary overlord then just disappearing for thousands of years is just not on!

Can't be anything to do with the general level of development can it? I mean, if you lived and died in the same 5 square miles in muddy poverty (or it's worldwide equivlient) who knows what happens thousands of miles away. Could be anything at all.

nah, just chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the answer to this of course comes from JAD.

God is dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, as I wrote it I wondered if JAD had asked himself the same question in a lucid moment (well) and come up with his theory. The longer that goes past without the believers being !taken up! the harder it gets to believe (I suppose!) it'll happen in your lifetime.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 27 2007,12:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:07)
 
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

< Oh, she found it. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I saw that blog post earlier today. I love this sentence      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheism intrigues me to no end. It is the single most illogical conclusion about life that one can every succumb to, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we all just don't understand how logical it is to believe in a deity whom you can't detect, who instructed ancient followers to build an ark that could contain dinosaurs, whales and great white sharks, and who apparently decided that the best solution for the humans who disobeyed him would be to have them torture and kill his incarnate son. That all seems eminently logical to me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I always wonder, and ask people like FTK, is that why god seems to have stopped. I mean, he came along burnt some bushes, did a bit of re-decorating (teh flud) and then, 2k odd years ago just stopped. Nothing else. From hero to zero. Why?
All this action (to the point of killing all but 8 people on the planet and appearing in person at times) and then nothing at all. If you are going to be a planetary overlord then just disappearing for thousands of years is just not on!

Can't be anything to do with the general level of development can it? I mean, if you lived and died in the same 5 square miles in muddy poverty (or it's worldwide equivlient) who knows what happens thousands of miles away. Could be anything at all.

nah, just chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.  It's totally illogical.  Only people that can't shake their initial indoctrination really believe.  Sad really.

BTW - I have to leave early - my son has baseball gamesn till late tonight, so you can all please feel free to reply to my latest post to FTK - It hasn't made it through moderation yet, but I hate to see a good opportunity go to waste.

I also let her know I will be out, so whatever.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 27 2007,13:04

Talk about fortuitous!  I just caught this post at Science Blogs! -  I think I have enough time to send this to FTK too... we'll see what happens.

Olympian Jonathon Edwards Now an Atheist
Category: Hootworthy
Posted on: June 27, 2007 11:57 AM, by Jim Fiore

UK gold medalist in the triple jump, Jonathon Edwards, long known for his wear-it-on-your-sleeve Christianity, has admitted to apostasy. Here is an article in The Times Online. It's a good read. Here's an out take:

Once you start asking yourself questions like, 'How do I really know there is a God?' you are already on the path to unbelief," Edwards says. "During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.
At one point, Edwards refused to participate on Sundays, missing the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo. Now Mr. Edwards claims "I have never been happier."

< http://scienceblogs.com/bushwel....now.php >
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2007,14:12

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:36)
What I always wonder, and ask people like FTK, is that why god seems to have stopped. I mean, he came along burnt some bushes, did a bit of re-decorating (teh flud) and then, 2k odd years ago just stopped. Nothing else. From hero to zero. Why?

All this action (to the point of killing all but 8 people on the planet and appearing in person at times) and then nothing at all. If you are going to be a planetary overlord then just disappearing for thousands of years is just not on!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's on vacation in the Magellanic Clouds.

I hear they're lovely this time of galactic rotation.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,14:33

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:32)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hypothesis is that Ian sounds too British and Dawkinsish; she doesn't want to engage in a civil conversation with someone like that. Now a caveman - that she can deal with!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK likes bad boys. We've known this for months.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 27 2007,14:35

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,14:33)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:35)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:32)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
     
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hypothesis is that Ian sounds too British and Dawkinsish; she doesn't want to engage in a civil conversation with someone like that. Now a caveman - that she can deal with!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK likes bad boys. We've known this for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WATCHOO SAYIN?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,15:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 27 2007,14:35)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,14:33)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 27 2007,12:35)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:32)
     
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
       
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hypothesis is that Ian sounds too British and Dawkinsish; she doesn't want to engage in a civil conversation with someone like that. Now a caveman - that she can deal with!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK likes bad boys. We've known this for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WATCHOO SAYIN?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stand by my statement.

Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,15:07

Hey FtK, you seem to be on, so hows about explaining the non existance of my posts on your blog.

Or mayhap you just want to go back to the Walt Brown book, I can do that if you like.
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,15:29

Ian,

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,15:31

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)
Ian,

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what the hell was the point of the post?

Why do you seem to want a discussion with J-Dog about it?

This isn't a particularly hostile forum FtK, just because the members are tired of seeing the same stuff over and over again doesn't mean they're nasty men. Anyway, to take an ID blog at random, if I WERE to comment on UD, for example, I would be banned quite qickly for not toeing the party line.

However, if this were not true, then yes, I would still comment. What is the point of just talking to people who think the same as you? Gets boring surely?
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,15:53

That's why I have a blog.  I can vent, I can converse, and, yes, I can moderate.   I don't think you understand how many inane comments I get on my blog.  Many times I also get the same type of comment from several people.  

I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?  I don't like it when I look back and see stuff that I've written when I'm frustrated, and there is no point in getting to that point.  Nothing is accomplished by it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,15:53

FTK,
simple question which I don't expect an answer to, but if there was a worldwide flood, where in the geological column can I locate the sediments that would have been desposited?

Have you got to that bit yet in the online book you are talking about?

It's a simple question with an obvious answer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Censorship for Jesus. Now i've seen it all. No wonder you and DaveScot get on.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
That's why I have a blog.  I can vent, I can converse, and, yes, I can moderate.   I don't think you understand how many inane comments I get on my blog.  Many times I also get the same type of comment from several people.  

I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?  I don't like it when I look back and see stuff that I've written when I'm frustrated, and there is no point in getting to that point.  Nothing is accomplished by it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think I'm looking for blood or something?

That I DON'T want a civil discussion? I've been looking for one for a while now, and I thought I might have found it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 27 2007,16:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,15:55)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Censorship for Jesus. Now i've seen it all. No wonder you and DaveScot get on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C*nsorship and telepathy for Jesus, PUH-LEASE!
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 27 2007,16:06

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,16:07

sigh...Ian, I only saw one comment from you in moderation and it was in reference to being irritated that I didn't put through a previous comment of yours.  

Did you by any chance post under a different name the first time?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,16:08

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


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


Spontaneity makes baby jesus cry.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,16:09

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:07)
sigh...Ian, I only saw one comment from you in moderation and it was in reference to being irritated that I didn't put through a previous comment of yours.  

Did you by any chance post under a different name the first time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. I posted three, including the complaint one, all adressed as IanBrown_101. It IS possible I made a typo, so maybe IaBrown_101 or something similar might have cropped up, but nothing that wasn't at least somewhat close to me.
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,16:10

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


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


Spontaneity is one thing, insanity, OTOH, is something I'd rather try to steer clear from.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,16:12

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


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


Spontaneity is one thing, insanity, OTOH, is something I'd rather try to steer clear from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, AirFarceDave banned on your blog is he?

Just my little joke...
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,16:18

There was something with a 101 attached, but it wasn't Ian.

Look, try again when the spirit moves you and I'll probably let your stuff fly.  The thing is, Ian, that I'm not all that sure how serious you really are about dialogue.   You question me, then someone here slams me, and then you join their band wagon immediately.  I don't care if you disagree with me, but someone who is seriously interested in civil conversation wouldn't join in the slaughter as well.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,16:21

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:18)
There was something with a 101 attached, but it wasn't Ian.

Look, try again when the spirit moves you and I'll probably let your stuff fly.  The thing is, Ian, that I'm not all that sure how serious you really are about dialogue.   You question me, then someone here slams me, and then you join their band wagon immediately.  I don't care if you disagree with me, but someone who is seriously interested in civil conversation wouldn't join in the slaughter as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just retried. Honestly, I don't think I've particularly joined in on any slaughter. Gentle mocking, yes, but then I gently mock EVERYONE, so get used to it.

If I have joined in a huge massacre, I appologise. I like joining in on jokes, if I find them amusing, but I doubt there will ever be malice behind it, since I really do want a civil discussion. I might call something you SAY ridiculous, laughable etc, but I'm not sticking the knife in, I'm just being somewhat blunt about it. I appologise for that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,16:27

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:07)
sigh...Ian, I only saw one comment from you in moderation and it was in reference to being irritated that I didn't put through a previous comment of yours.  

Did you by any chance post under a different name the first time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like you delete most comments. What are you afraid of?

And this is the FTK research thread, so i'm allowed *stamps feet*

You want civil ignore me in your FtK Walt Brown book thread instead  :p

Carry on ignoring my 5 yr old simple "which layer is the flood sediment" question over there, it's fine.

Soon up to 500 posts FTK. That's more then on your own blog I suspect!
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,16:48

Okay, Ian, I put you through.  I remember that comment, but I don't remember your name attached.  I deleted it because I've answered it so many times, I grow weary.

I deleted about 5 other comments that were content free, but of course put Richard's comment through.  Not much there to work with, but it's just impossible for me to ignore him. :(
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,16:53

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Okay, Ian, I put you through.  I remember that comment, but I don't remember your name attached.  I deleted it because I've answered it so many times, I grow weary.

I deleted about 5 other comments that were content free, but of course put Richard's comment through.  Not much there to work with, but it's just impossible for me to ignore him. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fine FtK, I'VE never had it answered before, and so long as I don't just get a "fuck off" or similar response, then all is well, and discussion can continue.
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,17:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep.  has crossed my mind, Ftk.  In fact, most of us have gone to just about every ID site out there and provided content.  For that trouble, we have been banned.  So, yeah.  I guess we would respond in hostile environments.  Isn't it interesting that we allow you to do what your friends will not?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2007,18:00

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,12:32)
It's interesting to ponder why FTK is so totally obsessed with atheists. I suspect she's compensating for something here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, like ALL fundies, she has no faith.  None at all.  Not a shred.  Which is why, like ALL fundies, she is so desperately in need of "proof".

But then, whaddya expect from a group of people who worship a Book About God instead of a God, and are too dumb to tell the difference?  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2007,18:04

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)
 Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We'd all have been banned after two posts.  (shrug)

Notice that YOU have not been banned HERE (though you did go stomping out, twice, all in a huff).

Does that tell you something?

BTW, if it's so frightfully mean to you here, why the hell do you keep coming back?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's right . . . .   That wheelbarrow full of martyrdom that you carry around with you and show off so proudly.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2007,18:06

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:10)
insanity, OTOH, is something I'd rather try to steer clear from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus H Christ, how can I be good if you keep lobbing softballs like THIS one to me . . . . . . . ?  I'm only human, dammit.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 27 2007,18:09

FTK posted this on her blog


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This entails consideration of much more than the scientific facts surrounding evolution. History, archaeology, prophetic accuracy, and the statistical probabilities that life arose from mere matter all have to be considered as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



prophetic accuracy? That I think is a new one!

Like what, exactly? Predictions required!

I predict you'll never give me those speculation taught as fact examples in that biology textbook you now have.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 27 2007,18:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,18:09)
FTK posted this on her blog
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This entails consideration of much more than the scientific facts surrounding evolution. History, archaeology, prophetic accuracy, and the statistical probabilities that life arose from mere matter all have to be considered as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



prophetic accuracy? That I think is a new one!

Like what, exactly? Predictions required!

I predict you'll never give me those speculation taught as fact examples in that biology textbook you now have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History: Jesus not mentioned outside of the bible in works of that era. Early Bibles have no virgin birth, "son of god" or resurrection.

Archaeology:  Erm?

prophetic accuracy: WTF!!??

statistical probabilities: Please! Show me your workings.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2007,18:22

Remember, everyone, creationism is SCIENCE.  It has NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION in it.  No sirree Bob.  It's just them lying atheist darwinists (and those plagiarizing activist judges) who would think that creationism has anything at all whatsoever to do with, ya know, Biblical prophecy and all that.

(snicker)  (giggle)

And FTK wonders why nobody takes her seriously . . . . ?
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,18:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To tell me that all of life on planet earth evolved from an information free microbe is fanciful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Methinks she doesn't know what information is.  Perhaps the relevant literature in information theory, thermodynamics, and other fields is beneath her?
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,18:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well then, I guess you have the burden of proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This in response to Ian Brown saying that there is no evidence for God and research into abiogenesis is ongoing.

Funny, she doesn't seem to require proof for the existence of God, pitiful details and all.
Posted by: Ftk on June 27 2007,21:59

Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)
[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Cheryl,

Almost missed your delurk.   There must be a whole peanut gallery of kcfsers out there enjoying watching ftk getting smacked around a little....just like the good 'ol days, huh?  

The only thing I mentioned to Dave was the cute little illustration of the microbe popping out of nowhere and evolving all by it's own little self.  

If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...

Hey, you wouldn't happen to know who might have posted my picture here a while back, would you?  I can't imagine you doing something like that...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,22:05

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,21:59)
Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)
[delurking]

Arden Chatfield's opening post:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[/delurking]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Cheryl,

Almost missed your delurk.   There must be a whole peanut gallery of kcfsers out there enjoying watching ftk getting smacked around a little....just like the good 'ol days, huh?  

The only thing I mentioned to Dave was the cute little illustration of the microbe popping out of nowhere and evolving all by it's own little self.  

If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...

Hey, you wouldn't happen to know who might have posted my picture here a while back, would you?  I can't imagine you doing something like that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I smell deflection.
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,22:23

Ah, I feel for you, Ftk.

Here's a sure-fire way to manage the number of outstanding questions you have:

ANSWER SOME OF THEM!!!

Easiest possible solution and all....
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,00:25

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,21:59)
There must be a whole peanut gallery of kcfsers out there enjoying watching ftk getting smacked around a little....just like the good 'ol days, huh?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you need a bigger wheelbarrow, FTK.

(sigh)

You need serious help.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,00:26

My my, FTK certainly seems to have an awfully inflated sense of her own self-importance, doesn't she.

Geez.

No WONDER everyone thinks she's nuts.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 28 2007,02:45

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,21:59)
If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...

Hey, you wouldn't happen to know who might have posted my picture here a while back, would you?  I can't imagine you doing something like that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow.

FTK YOU claimed that speculation was being taught as fact in college level textbooks. YOU.

When asked to give an example you cannot. So YOU are TYPICAL of EVERY OTHER FUNDY WACKJOB OUT THERE until and unless you put some substance behind YOUR claims.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems I have to help you out and make a list... And it's not 50 new questions, it's the same 50 questions over and over.

1: You claim speculation is taught as fact in college level textbooks. Please give an example, ideally with pagenumbers etc, or retract the claim.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,06:42

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,21:59)
Hey Cheryl,

Almost missed your delurk.   There must be a whole peanut gallery of kcfsers out there enjoying watching ftk getting smacked around a little....just like the good 'ol days, huh?  

The only thing I mentioned to Dave was the cute little illustration of the microbe popping out of nowhere and evolving all by it's own little self.  

If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...

Hey, you wouldn't happen to know who might have posted my picture here a while back, would you?  I can't imagine you doing something like that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK - In case you hadn't noticed, your entire post is a waste of space. That little microbe is not the only thing that seems to be "information-free".

As for the notion that there are too many questions for you here, that perception is, as others pointed out, due to the fact that most of the questions get repeated a dozen times or so when you never answer them. I am also tempted to point out that science (and any search for truth) moves by asking, and answering questions. Except for those who already have all the answers...

I dunno who said it, but this aphorism seems quite apt: God is the answer when you don't ask enough questions.

sheesh
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,07:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK - In case you hadn't noticed, your entire post is a waste of space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, the irony of that statement.

Btw, Dave, for a guy who doesn't want to bring up religion, you sure do get your jabs in about those who believe in God.  I'm guessing you're into talk about religion as long as it's content free.  Again, the irony.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,07:18

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK - In case you hadn't noticed, your entire post is a waste of space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, the irony of that statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I honestly don't think you know what that word (irony) means.

Now try to answer the questions from several previous comments, and see if you can add some content to your snark.

What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?

Please provide examples of unwarranted speculation that you have found in the Campbell textbook, with page or figure numbers for each example.

Thanks in advance for not answering.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,07:19

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:12)
you sure do get you jabs in about God alot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How dreadful.

Do you have any science to talk about, FTK?  Or are you just here to feed your massive martyr complex again?

You've lost even your entertainment value, FTK.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,07:20

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:12)
Btw, Dave, for a guy who doesn't want to bring up religion, you sure do get you jabs in about God alot.  I'm guessing you're into talk about religion as long as it's content free.  Again, the irony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re your edited addition - I don't want to give away trade secrets, but a long series of observations would suggest that making comments about god or religion is just about the only way to get you to respond here.

Now please answer the questions. It really isn't that painful
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,07:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would depend on how far you go back in the evolutionary story.  A TE would tell you that there is absolutely no indication that a Designer is necessary for the process....they merely believe in that ultimate designer on *faith*.  There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.  

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please provide examples of unwarranted speculation that you have found in the Campbell textbook, with page or figure numbers for each ecample.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now?  Good grief, I'm on my way to work.  Dave, the book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution.  The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple.
Posted by: George on June 28 2007,07:39

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 28 2007,07:20)
Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:12)
Btw, Dave, for a guy who doesn't want to bring up religion, you sure do get you jabs in about God alot.  I'm guessing you're into talk about religion as long as it's content free.  Again, the irony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re your edited addition - I don't want to give away trade secrets, but a long series of observations would suggest that making comments about god or religion is just about the only way to get you to respond here.

Now please answer the questions. It really isn't that painful
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From my brief foray in from the sidelines a long while back, I would agree.  But sometimes talking about religion can reveal where someone really stands.  During our exchanges FtK showed that the literal truth of at least some of the creation myth- Adam & Eve and original sin- is central to her faith.  I don't think she will accept any scientific evidence that contradicts that.  Absence of answers to questions, especially the Egyptian one, is pretty good evidence.  Have to say I'm disappointed.
Posted by: George on June 28 2007,07:42

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34)
I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


QED
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 28 2007,07:50

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would depend on how far you go back in the evolutionary story.  A TE would tell you that there is absolutely no indication that a Designer is necessary for the process....they merely believe in that ultimate designer on *faith*.  There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.  

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please provide examples of unwarranted speculation that you have found in the Campbell textbook, with page or figure numbers for each ecample.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now?  Good grief, I'm on my way to work.  Dave, the book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution.  The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you disbelieve the biology text book because it's "all speculation" but trust the bible 100% because it's infallible.

Yet the biology text book has empirical proof as to it's correctness.

The Bible does not.

Interesting. Luckily the world is not run by people like you or we'd all be sitting round in mud-huts chanting for the volcano not to erupt (again). Religion has held the world back far too long. I wonder where we could be now if it was not for the power of the church (in general) in century's gone by.

The only pity is that you get to share in the technological wonders of the modern world, personally I'd put you on a island with all the other fundies and see how long it takes for the priesthood that would inevitably spring up to

a) rule with a fist of iron.
b) become corrupt.
c) proclaim that "reading is a sin" as it can lead to dancing.

And all the other usual fundie denial of reality stuff.

If there is "no" evidence for common descent please explain the following (or point out where the speculation is, same difference)



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(H=human, C=chimp, G=Gorilla, O=orangutan)

"Long long ago, in a laboratory far far away, scientists figured out that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes in their sperms and eggs, whereas humans only have 23. Therefore, these great scientists theorized that two of our chromosomes might have fused together sometime in the recent past (aka million years ago.). Their theory made 3 predictions:

1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.
2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.
3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. Sort of like this:

ENDchromosomestuffDNEENDchromosomestuffDNE

See the "DNEEND" in the middle? That's what two telomeres would look like if two chromosomes were stuck together.

As you might have guessed, all three predictions have been verified. While, as always, it's impossible to prove that an all-powerful being didn't create the evidence to trick us, the reasonable explanation is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >

Of course there is always < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#evidence > but I guess you'll just shrug that off as untrustworthy (after all, it's not 2000 years old and written by "nobody really knows" which seems to be the requirement for trust for you!

There is page after page of modern research on the proof for common descent.

If common descent is not true FTK what do you think happened instead? Does that "theory" make any predictions? You know, like the chromosomal fusion prediction that was famously proven?

You have my pity FTK.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 28 2007,07:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 28 2007,07:50)
Interesting. Luckily the world is not run by people like you or we'd all be sitting round in mud-huts chanting for the volcano not to erupt (again).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Come again? >
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,08:00

The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 28 2007,08:08

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what's the evidence against the chromosomal fusion event then? specifically? Lets discuss that sole issue then as TBH I'm interested in the evidence against as the case for seems watertight. I'm always willing to learn something new. Are you? I'll limit my questions to that topic for now.
Posted by: George on June 28 2007,08:24

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there isn't.  That's the whole problem.  What there are mountains of are claims that there are mountains of evidence.  And a lot of verbiage.

No one ever shows us the mountain.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,08:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I used to think that you were merely ignorant.
Then I thought you were intentionally deceitful.
Now I just know that you have a 2nd grade grasp of English.
And a kindergarten relationship with logic:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

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



You do realize that this statement means:  Since I think there is no evidence for common descent, therefor design?

Have you even once tried to think for yourself?  Ever?

Edit:  (to try hopelessly to get you to see what you write)  That is the same logic as "I don't like ice cream, therefor I love pizza."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 28 2007,08:30

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Provide the mountains. Show them.

The problem you have is that you've been entranced by the anti-science crowd to think that their handwaving is actually evidence when in truth it is nothing but a distortion of the facts in order to comply with the bible.

It is not science. It is at best misunderstanding of science and at worst a massive lie.
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on June 28 2007,08:45

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, you'd do really well to get a high-school or elementary college level biology text and read it thoroughly, cover to cover, and really study this stuff hard.

These guys are not making it up, and more to the point it's actually really hard work to extract chromosomes from chimps, humans and gorillas and line them all up;  if you include all the precursor work it is literally decades upon decades of work of hundreds upon hundreds of people which were required to produce that little diagram that oldman shows you there.

Actually getting real information out of the physical world is really hard.  Don't write it off unless you understand the kind of monstrous effort that goes in.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,08:47

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would depend on how far you go back in the evolutionary story.  A TE would tell you that there is absolutely no indication that a Designer is necessary for the process....they merely believe in that ultimate designer on *faith*.  There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.  

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Waffling. Goal-post moving. Note that we are not discussing the difference between a TE and an atheist. We are discussing the difference between a TE and you.

Here's what you < originally said. >.            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since virtually all other vertebrates (and especially other Antarctic fish) have red blood cells, it would seem quite probable that whatever ancestoral (sic) fish the icefish adapted from had originally had the gene which accounts for red blood cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence clearly accepts common descent. Theistic evolutionists accept common descent.

And when I asked about mechanisms for this speciation event, you wrote          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, duh, the mechanisms would be those of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence clearly accepts the mechanisms of evolution, AND the context is not microevolution, but speciation. Theistic evolutionists accept this mechanism.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is classic. You MUST (not will) pass on the question because ID advocates have NOT provided any evidence (only inference)  for anything other than their own mendacity.

Re my weeks-old request for proof, with page numbers, of your claim that there is lots of unwarranted speculation in the Campbell intro biology text, you wrote:            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now?  Good grief, I'm on my way to work.  Dave, the book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution.  The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney. Besides the fact that I (and several others) originally asked this question weeks ago, there is, as you say, a "mountain of evidence" for the idea that we arose by common descent from microscopic life forms. Statements supported by evidence are not unwarranted speculation. In the icefish example (a small foothill in that mountain range) you seemed to accept the basis for that evidence. It is, indeed, very hard to overlook those mountains once you open your eyes. On the contrary, there is NOT A SHRED of evidence (only inference) for your creation story.

So, to summarize, you have not provided any rebuttal to my conclusion that your view of the genesis of globin genes in icefish puts you in the same category as Miller and other theistic evolutionists. You have not provided any examples (and certainly no page numbers) for your claim that an intro biology book contains speculation.

Wanna try again, this time with some real facts or logic?
Posted by: BWE on June 28 2007,09:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.  

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  

What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question...

[S]cience is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please provide examples of unwarranted speculation that you have found in the Campbell textbook, with page or figure numbers for each ecample.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[T]he book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution.  The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edited for brevity. I think I omitted no information.

Ftk, we really don't know each other. Since you have no real gripe with science other than you don't like some of the conclusions the scientific method has led us to I don't take too much offense at your rambling god talk. Hopefully you don't mind that I slaughter chickens and wank in the blood for my religious practices either.

However, that post makes an interesting statement that I think might prove to be false were you to examine it. Have you read the textbook in question? Do you really think it proposes common descent and then states as fact everything else in the book with only support from the idea of common descent? My guess is that you were probably looking at a section on phylogeny but since you actually did not tell us what the book said < verbatim > I couldn't really tell now could I?

Ignorance is one thing. Not just forgivable but expected in everyone. Freedom of religion too. You push the boundaries a bit too much for my taste though with what looks to me to be behavior bordering on dishonesty.

Am I missing the point?
Posted by: csadams on June 28 2007,10:17

Hey FtK,

[looking around] Nope, don't see any peanut gallery around here.  I saw your nym on the thread title, right next to the word 'research' and thought . . . wow . . . is it possible?  Might you be discussing some actual research?

Turns out, no.  Arden Chatfield & Albatrossity2 asked a couple of simple questions you've dodged:

1.  Please list the actual factual research articles you've read.
2.  Please point out the multitude of glaring errors you state exist in the intro bio textbook.

Perhaps you should just ignore the "20 other questions get thrown my way" and try to focus on these two . . . let us know you're serious about discussing science.

Picture?  Did I miss something?  Have I met you under a different name?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 28 2007,10:44

While I hate to add yet another question to the many that FtK hasn't answered, PZ has a < post > that provides "evidence" of a man being spoken to by god:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New Kensington resident Joey Salvati, 39, a father of two, was in the shower about a month ago when he first heard God speak to him about the matter. Whether it was an external or internal voice, he wasn't sure. He tried to ignore it, but it kept coming back, day after day, until he realized he had to do something about it. The message was for Salvati to make wooden paddles for corporal punishment and give them to parents who need help disciplining their children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm wondering first if FtK has placed an order, and also how it's possible to tell the difference between someone who claims that god gave him direct orders (Noah, for example) and a paranoid schizophrenic.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,10:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there is "no" evidence for common descent please explain the following (or point out where the speculation is, same difference)



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



So "obviously" common "design" that I'm afraid I just can't "speak" about that here--as "I've" already speaked about it in so many places, with so many mountains of "evidence" that I've pointed out so "clearly" so many other times.

*sigh* atheist assholes.
Posted by: Steverino on June 28 2007,10:57

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here, make this easy on yourself.

Post one specific argument, that you can back up with data against common descent.

We will limit responses to your one specific argument.

:)
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,11:51

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)
Ian,

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not exactly a symmetric comparison.  Rationalists like to troll the fundatic websites too.  But they tend not to be seen because they don't get through the censorship as easily as creo's do here.  And that is at websites that allow commenting at all.  Many do not.  Very revealing, don't you think?
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,11:59

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,11:51)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)
Ian,

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not exactly a symmetric comparison.  Rationalists like to troll the fundatic websites too.  But they tend not to be seen because they don't get through the censorship as easily as creo's do here.  And that is at websites that allow commenting at all.  Many do not.  Very revealing, don't you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems this point may have been brought up before; I can't remember.

How about you, Ftk?  Have you ever given any thought to this?
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,12:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ftk wrote: That's simply your opinion, and you're welcome to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She is simply going to bury herself in relativism.  Well atleast she seems to have more of a live and let live attitude then phelps and his ilk.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,12:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 27 2007,18:17)

Archaeology:  Erm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Name that Pharoah!
< List of Pharoahs >
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,12:09

As regards Phelps, yep.  But he truly is one of the more despicable human beings to have ever walked around.  Comparisons to him are not warranted in many (if any) cases.

The relativism angle is one that has always fascinated me.  Fundies (and to a greater extent, Conservatives in general) use up a lot of oxygen bemoaning the relativism of liberals and anyone else they don't like.  However, when it comes to defending their pet theories, it's relative away.

Weird.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,12:23

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,21:59)
If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You just might be on the cusp of realizing that all that questioning is because the world is a great deal more complicated than can be accommodated in a few pages of a single book so old that man could not write when it was being dreamed up and orally handed down and was barely able melt copper and tin when it was written.  You don't have far to jump.  And I think some here have tried hard because they think you just might be able to jump that far.
Posted by: Louis on June 28 2007,12:24

FTK,

Time and again I've asked you nice questions, time and again I've been so polite my heair hurt and time and again you've handwaved/ignored all my (and those of many other's also) to engage you in reasonable discussion on ANY topic, let alone science.

Hence why my scepticism towards your claims of open, honest desire for discussion has blossomed. Claims that we are all horribly biased and evil and god hating naughty persons butters no parsnips. Time and again you've been given golden opportunities to back up your claims and time and again you haven't.

Since (as I mentioned before) claims to "having read lots of journal articles" doesn't move me at all (for the reasons mentioned) I would like you to answer one question, i.e. support one claim with some evidence and defend it. You claim that in the biology textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you there are claims based on nothing more than assertion and speculation alone. List a few and show where they are supported by assertion and speculation alone. You claim this to be the case, so it should be simple for you to do it.

I'm not asking for it right this second, I'm not asking you to disprove centuries of science, I'm not asking for you to prove the whole of ID creationism, I'm not asking you to prove god exists or doesn't or is the one you believe in. I am just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. You are fond of making these big claims and running away or crying "persecution" whenever asked to support them. No meaningful dialogue can ever develop when you behave this dishonestly.

And to answer your question, yes, if I ever went over to UD or somewhere like it (not that this is an equal or valid comparison at all) and made the same sort of claims you do I would damned well support it (until I was undoubtedly booted).

So come on FTK, you have NO excuse not to support this claim that YOU have made. No one forced you to make it, no one is making you believe it or post it on any website, you have done this of your own volition. Since I am a curious person I would like to see what evidence you have to support this claim you make. Show me the evidence or retract the claim. Why is that hard for you to do?

Louis
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,12:45

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,12:09)
As regards Phelps, yep.  But he truly is one of the more despicable human beings to have ever walked around.  Comparisons to him are not warranted in many (if any) cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will accept that, but only in part.  I am personally familiar enough with fundatics (my sister married into a family of them) that I don't accept phelps as so far from the mean as people might think.  In line with Godwin, though, I will not make that comparison again.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relativism angle is one that has always fascinated me.  Fundies (and to a greater extent, Conservatives in general) use up a lot of oxygen bemoaning the relativism of liberals and anyone else they don't like.  However, when it comes to defending their pet theories, it's relative away.

Weird.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I noticed that weirdness myself, too.

added in edit:  Yes, an < invidious comparison > was a poor thing for me to do.
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,13:03

I guess I proved my point (again).  I answer one of Dave's questions and approx. 12 more popped up.  Let's see...where to begin?  

Sigh...I think I'll wait 'till the weekend when I actually have time to take the questions seriously.  But, I have no idea which questions to start with...do I try to use my "telepathy" and answer people who I think might sincerely want to discuss the issue, or do I just start picking off each question from the start of the thread?  That would probably take my entire weekend to get through.

Hell, maybe I'll just close my eyes and scan through with my cursor and wherever I stop, I answer that question.

Or, better yet, maybe I should join Icky in greener pastures.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,13:12

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:03)
I guess I proved my point (again).  I answer one of Dave's questions and approx. 12 more popped up.  Let's see...where to begin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you didn't answer them, as I politely pointed out. Let's keep that part straight, at least. Revisionist history won't work here; there is a written record.

And unless I am mistaken, at least some of the "new" questions you are upset about are the same old questions which you didn't answer. Read the post by Louis to see this for yourself.

Honestly, if you ever did answer a question here, we'd all be so stunned you could probably take a week off, at least.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,13:19

You know when your kids are lying to you, Ftk?  That's right, it's when they can't stay on topic, switch the subject, and generally talk around any question you ask them.

If you can tell wen they're lying (and I'll bet you can), why do you think we can't tell when you do it?

For example, when your kids are lying, do they sound like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sigh...I think I'll wait 'till the weekend when I actually have time to take the questions seriously.  But, I have no idea which questions to start with...do I try to use my "telephathy" and answer people who I think might sincerely want to discuss the issue, or do I just start picking off each question from the start of the thread?  That would probably take my entire weekend to get through.

Hell, maybe I'll just close my eyes and scan through with my cursor and wherever I stop, I answer that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that I left you one very easy out (perhaps more).  Please use it to continue your poor-me act.
Posted by: stevestory on June 28 2007,13:20

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,13:45)
I am personally familiar enough with fundatics (my sister married into a family of them)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've had relationships with a wide array of women. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, beautiful, ugly.* The only deal breaker is, No Fundies. Fortunately, I've spent the last 8 years of my life in college towns (Raleigh, Durham, and now Chapel Hill) so that's not a problem.

* (friend of mine used to say, "big, small, short or tall, I Love Em All)  :p
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,13:37

Quote (stevestory @ June 28 2007,13:20)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,13:45)
I am personally familiar enough with fundatics (my sister married into a family of them)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've had relationships with a wide array of women. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, beautiful, ugly.* The only deal breaker is, No Fundies. Fortunately, I've spent the last 8 years of my life in college towns (Raleigh, Durham, and now Chapel Hill) so that's not a problem.

* (friend of mine used to say, "big, small, short or tall, I Love Em All)  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ie. Steve's post:  Holy crap...dude, you are missing out.

The rest of you are full of BS.  I've answered questions, and I've given you a whole freakin' book to consider.  Ians been asking questions about it, and I haven't seen answers to all his questions.  The ones you do answer, you just cut and paste.  Can I cut and paste?  Would that be okay?  Seems whenever I cut and paste, I'm called on that too.

You want me to spend hours researching and giving you *my opinion* on these issues.  So, you'll have to wait until I have time.  

Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 28 2007,13:48

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:37)
 
Quote (stevestory @ June 28 2007,13:20)
 
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,13:45)
I am personally familiar enough with fundatics (my sister married into a family of them)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've had relationships with a wide array of women. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, beautiful, ugly.* The only deal breaker is, No Fundies. Fortunately, I've spent the last 8 years of my life in college towns (Raleigh, Durham, and now Chapel Hill) so that's not a problem.

* (friend of mine used to say, "big, small, short or tall, I Love Em All)  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ie. Steve's post:  Holy crap...dude, you are missing out.

The rest of you are full of BS.  I've answered questions, and I've given you a whole freakin' book to consider.  Ians been asking questions about it, and I haven't seen answers to all his questions.  The ones you do answer, you just cut and paste.  Can I cut and paste?  Would that be okay?  Seems whenever I cut and paste, I'm called on that too.

You want me to spend hours researching and giving you *my opinion* on these issues.  So, you'll have to wait until I have time.  

Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious.

As I predicted on Ian's recently-initiated thread for the Walt Brown Discussion  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll even promise to stay out of this, since it is clear that she already knows "know where the conversation is going to end up". And so do I. It will end up with her ignoring civil questions until somebody gets uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just wouldn't have predicted it would happen so quickly!
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,13:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want me to spend hours researching and giving you *my opinion* on these issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Priceless.

You have to research for hours in order to give us your opinion.  Can you tell us exactly who you have to consult in order to receive your opinion?

Beautiful.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,13:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??

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



You do realize why I leave you lots of messages?  Might it not be that you have shown you won;t publish comments with actual content?  So, really what's the point of trying to provide content?

As to the spare time issue, something to consider:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey

Posts: 366
Joined: June 2006
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ftk

Posts: 427
Joined: Mar. 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got anything better?  Or is this the best avoidance ya got?
Posted by: Ftk on June 28 2007,13:59

Dave...one last time, luv.  I will get back with you this weekend.  

Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,14:00

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:59)
Dave...one last time, luv.  I will get back with you this weekend.  

Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, please refrain from coming back here unless you plan on answering some questions.

Carry on.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,14:00

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,13:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??

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



[snip]

As to the spare time issue, something to consider:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey

Posts: 366
Joined: June 2006
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ftk

Posts: 427
Joined: Mar. 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got anything better?  Or is this the best avoidance ya got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ten points for Blipey.  :)
Posted by: Louis on June 28 2007,15:15

Wow, I'm full of BS now? Who knew!

Thanks FTK. I see that in your world being (at least relatively) polite, sticking up for someone when they were wronged (remember who complained about that photo) and trying to engage someone on the issues deserves having one's honesty questioned.

I'm far from perfect, let's be blunt about that, but I don't think that asking you to support a simple claim that YOU made of your own free will is in any way hostile or unpleasant, and it certainly isn't deserving of being told I am full of BS. How very....what's the word I'm looking for....christian of you.

Louis

P.S. Oh FYI: Respect for ID creationists? Depends. If they are merely stupid/mislead/mistaken/apathetic/uninformed (which all of us are to some degree and on some occasions)  I have no problem with them. Dishonest is a different matter. I wonder FTK, is the benefit of the doubt that I have given you misplaced? Are you a dishonest creationist? I'd hate to think this was the case, especially after you keep claiming to be so "persecuted", because you see I think dishonest people should be confronted by their dishonesty. In fact you could say I'm pretty merciless about it. Prove me wrong FTK, answer the question. It is, like Albatrossity says, a question you have been asked many times and avoided equally many times. I'm beginning to think you cannot support it and are merely lying about being able to do so. Are you a liar FTK? Are YOU in fact full of BS, not I?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??

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



Just to gratuitously rub it in:

FTK: 4.59 posts per day

Blipey: .97 posts per day

Glass houses, stones, all that.

I didn't know mothers had that much spare time on their hands.

(PS: Yes, yes, I know, 5.85. Shut up, that's why. :angry: )
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,15:31

Darn, I was hoping that the math might pass her up.  But, now that you're showing it to her...well, okay, that's funny as well.
Posted by: Louis on June 28 2007,15:35

Ah the "spare time" insult! As if by posting here people are some how less successful in real life by virtue of wasting their time. I always think this has vastly more to say about the insulter than the insultee.

Anyway, even if I were going to stoop to the barrel scraping arse end of my invective repertoire and use this vignette of vitriol, I wouldn't be so butt-quakingly, mind numbingly STUPID as to use it against someone who posted less than I did over a greater period of time.

Momma always said stupid is as stupid does.

Louis

P.S. I think that since FTK is free to lob insults at people who've been polite to her (*almost* exclusively, I'm going for my merit badge dontcherknow) I reckon it's open season on her question avoiding booty.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2007,15:37

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:26)
(PS: Yes, yes, I know, 5.85. Shut up, that's why. :angry: )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TARDEN CHATTERBOX!!!



HAR HAR HAR.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,15:38

Only .97posts/day?  Well Blipey did have to make that trip to Texas to stare down DaveTard.  That must have been what slowed him down.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,15:38

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,15:31)
Darn, I was hoping that the math might pass her up.  But, now that you're showing it to her...well, okay, that's funny as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh oh. I didn't ruin another joke you were setting up, did I? :O
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,15:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,15:37)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:26)
(PS: Yes, yes, I know, 5.85. Shut up, that's why. :angry: )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TARDEN CHATTERBOX!!!



HAR HAR HAR.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RITCHARD IS JEST JELOUS BECASUE I HAVE A BIG MANLEY 5.85 COMPARD TO HIS WIMPIE GIRLISH 3.66. RAAAAAAAAR!!!!! :angry:
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,15:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah the "spare time" insult!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It deserves a name of its own: argumentum ad leisurum?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2007,15:47

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,15:37)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:26)
(PS: Yes, yes, I know, 5.85. Shut up, that's why. :angry: )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TARDEN CHATTERBOX!!!



HAR HAR HAR.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RITCHARD IS JEST JELOUS BECASUE I HAVE A BIG MANLEY 5.85 COMPARD TO HIS WIMPIE GIRLISH 3.66. RAAAAAAAAR!!!!! :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IF YOU REMOVE HOMO ELISTIST WORDS THEN MINE ARE BIGGER. YOU JUST PAD YOURS WITH HOMO-CHATTER.
Posted by: Louis on June 28 2007,15:47

Arden,

I'd say "Argumentum ad inability to conceive of time management skills greater than one's own and project like a motherfucker" is more accurate, but 'tis a tad wordy.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2007,15:51

Quote (Louis @ June 28 2007,15:47)
Arden,

I'd say "Argumentum ad inability to conceive of time management skills greater than one's own and project like a motherfucker" is more accurate, but 'tis a tad wordy.

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


Get Robert O'Brien to put that in Latin for you.
Posted by: Louis on June 28 2007,15:53

I can do the Latin myself. No need to involve the mentally deficient.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,17:47

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34)
I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, MY next question would be: why should anyone give two hoots in Hades WHAT the opinion on the matter of an uneducated suburban housewife is?

I, uh, don't expect you to actually answer that question.

Or any other.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,17:54

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:03)
Or, better yet, maybe I should join Icky in greener pastures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(yawn)  Again?

Bye.  (shrug)  Don't let the door hit your holy little ass on the way out.  Again.



How many times do you, uh, plan on stomping out all in a huff, FTK?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,17:56

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:59)
Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could always ban him.

Ya know, like you've been banned here.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2007,18:02

Quote (Louis @ June 28 2007,15:47)
Arden,

I'd say "Argumentum ad inability to conceive of time management skills greater than one's own and project like a motherfucker" is more accurate, but 'tis a tad wordy.

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


Indeed.

Why is it that the fundies ALWAYS manage to find the time to POST their idiotic drivel, but somehow NEVER seem to have the time to DEFEND any of it . . . . . ?


But then, since FTK doesn't actually understand any of it anyway, the only "response" she will offer is "read Wally's book" (which, of course, she ALSO doesn't understand anyway).


Any serious discussion of science with FTK is an utter waste of time.  It's like discussing quantum physics with your goldfish (except that the goldfish at least has the good sense to shut up and not talk about things it doesn't understand and doesn't know anything about).
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 29 2007,08:52

Just to make sure that everyone understands the implications of < this > alleged answer to my question about the icefish.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation.

Ftk = microev....  TE's = loony speculation.

fish are fish...microev.

fish can adapt...microev.

fish evolves into a one legged jackrabbit...looney speculation.  

[please, oh please be aware that the last line in this post was sarcasm.  Yes, I realize that fish and rabbits are not on the same branch of the evo tree...they are merely long, long lost cousins.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that she apparently believes that fish = fish, and that the other Antarctic fish are all the same, just with different "adaptations". In her perspective, speciation is just microevolution. She is a closet baraminologist, and probably believes in front-loading as well.

Note further that she apparently will only accept macroevolution if one "kind" of animal changes into another kind, preferably right in front of her very eyes and certainly in her lifetime. Speciation is not good enough. Based on the other parts of her comment, I don't believe for a minute that she is being sarcastic with that last statement. She thinks that proof of evolution requires direct observation of drastic changes in organisms.

Clearly, by setting up an impossible proof, she will never be convinced by lesser evidence. She requires a miracle, which is a common enough occurrence in the science book she prefers.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2007,10:14

FtK makes the claim that a series of posts that she made in the Walt Brown thread are analogous to other series of posts that Lenny Flank has posted elsewhere. Let's look at the content:



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

[Post 1] Lenny is a weirdo.

[Post 2] I'm practicing posting Lenny style.

[Post 3] I wonder how many separate posts in a row I could accumulate before Steve would ban me.

[Post 4] Evolution is dead, dead, dead.

Bwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[Post 5] Lenny is the antichrist...

[Post 6] I don't like Lenny's avitar.

[Post 7] Lenny the loser makes me barf.

[Post 8] Mimicking Lenny makes me feel like I'm a 3rd grader.  Creepy.


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



I'm going to invoke the following rule:



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

Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.

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



FtK can back up the claim that Lenny has made such a series of posts, including the same lack of content and reliance upon simple insult for the same number of posts, or retract the claim. I will determine how well convincing a proposed demonstration is. FtK has one week to accomplish one or the other.

Back in your court, FtK. If there is no response doing one or the other by July 6th, I'll consider that a default.
Posted by: Ftk on June 29 2007,10:18

Are you freaking serious, Wes?  He does it all the time.

I most certainly will not waste my time with this crap - and, you call yourself a moderator???!

Ian, wherever you are, maybe we can find another forum to discuss whatever you want to talk about??

This is BS...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2007,10:20

In a week, then, you will be out of here.

That's what you've wanted from the outset, isn't it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2007,10:24

Retraction would seem to be an option. Humility maketh the (wo)man and all that.
Posted by: Ftk on June 29 2007,10:25

No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.  I merely pointed out what a jerk Lenny was being.  Sheesh!!!  What the heck is wrong with you Elsberry?  Why should I answer anything with your minions popping in and treating me like complete crap after every post?

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!

Ian, it looks like I'm on my way out, so just suggest somewhere else to go, or you can visit my blog.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,10:29

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:18)
Are you freaking serious, Wes?  He does it all the time.

I most certainly will not waste my time with this crap - and, you call yourself a moderator???!

Ian, wherever you are, maybe we can find another forum to discuss whatever you want to talk about??

This is BS
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No it is not.
You made a claim and have been asked to provide evidence or a retraction.

If it is true that Lenny "does that all the time" it will be easy to provide evidence. If you find it difficult to find evidence to back up your claim then consider the possibility that you "may" be wrong.

BTW. I believe Wes is serious.

To reiterate: If you are correct, you will find it very easy to back-up your claim. If it is difficult to back-up your claim, you are probably wrong.
Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,10:29

FTK,

It's dead simple. You find a series of 8 Lenny posts which contain nothing but insults and contain no on topic comments, and your claim is supported.

Granted, it's a harsher and more precise than I would have done, but it has a certain hilariously poetic justice, especially because you are big on claims and complaints and very very very VERY small on actual discussion. Lenny does similar things perhaps, but does he do the same thing.

Whilst your supporting or retracting your claim about Lenny, how about you support your claim about unsupported suppositions in biology textbooks? I'd love to see these unsupported assumptions so that I can write to the textbooks authors and editiors. I am very keen on accurate science education and the last thing we need is poor texts undermining hard work.

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2007,10:30



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

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!

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



I see three posts in a row by Lenny earlier.

You opened the door to what the "next" question would be; Lenny offered his own.

You brought up leaving this forum; Lenny noted that you've done it before.

You brought up posting policy at your blog; Lenny compared that to what demonstrably has happened here.

I'm not seeing the analogy to your indicated series of posts. Make your argument if you are going to.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,10:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:25)
No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.  I merely pointed out what a jerk Lenny was being.  Sheesh!!!  What the heck is wrong with you Elsberry?  Why should I answer anything with your minions popping in and treating me like complete crap after every post?

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!

Ian, it looks like I'm on my way out, so just suggest somewhere else to go, or you can visit my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh FGS, stop playing the victim.

If you are "on your way out" it is through your own choices. You only have to either provide evidence for a claim you made or retract it. That is no-way certain banning.

If you get banned here because of this, it is through your own choice to neither provide evidence or an apology. Your choice. You will not be a marter.
Posted by: Ftk on June 29 2007,10:38

Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point.

Elsberry...you are a complete jerk.

Bye.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 29 2007,10:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,10:30)
 

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

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!

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



Make your argument if you are going to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes, please be patient. It should be clear by now that FtK is a very busy person, and just doesn't have the time to support her blathering with evidence address all of these questions. Let her go to her kid's soccer game, and host a party for 900 people, and then maybe she can find the time to read the pertinent literature link to Walt Brown.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2007,10:41

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38)
Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point.

Elsberry...you are a complete jerk.

Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is parody a defense?

Calling folks a jerk to their face isn't too nice, mind.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,10:45

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38)
Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I'll have to remember that! Next time I make an unsupportable claim I pull out of my butt and get called on it, I'll just reply "I WAS MAKING A POINT!", and that should make it all better.

I had no idea I could use that! Think I'll try it in my next article...  :)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,10:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,10:41)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38)
Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point.

Elsberry...you are a complete jerk.

Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is parody a defense?

Calling folks a jerk to their face isn't too nice, mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Especially when you consider the tolerance shown here.

Ftk, as a controling point, try and parody an "evilutionist" on an ID site. Pretend that you suport evolution on UD, argue pro-evo arguments there. See how long it takes to get banned.

BTW. You still aint banned here and wont be if you post evidence to back-up your claim.

Can you really not see the difference?
Posted by: PennyBright on June 29 2007,10:53

Nicely done, Wes.

FtK - time to put up or shut up.
Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,10:54

Or you could retract the claim that what you did and what Lenny did was identical in execution and motivation.

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,10:54

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38)
Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,10:57

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Louis
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,11:11

I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,11:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you really not see the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course she can't.  She's whined and complained about the incivility of everyone here from the beginning.  She also has complained about our complete and utter lack of desire to talk about science from the beginning.

Considering this Bizarro World of hers, it's a wonder she didn't somehow ban herself and cry foul months ago.

I will, of course, not back up any of these claims because you all are homos.  Unless you threaten to ban me, Wes.  Then I will certainly cut and paste several of Ftk's comments in order to support my claim.

Cut and paste is hard.  Maybe I'll just have you look at just about everyone's sigs instead.

An actual question (number 52?) for you to ignore:

Is it now beyond your abilities to cut and paste as well as to read, think, or speak for yourself?  Perhaps we should've sent you a feeding tube instead of a biology textbook?
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,11:27

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11)
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I do agree that occasionally Lenny is obnoxious, I don;t think that Wes is out of line at all.  The point, it should be remembered, is not "is Lenny obnoxious" but rather "is Ftk correct"?

That is the one thing that Ftk has possibly never been.  It is also the one thing that she has never acknowledged (not unusual for creationists).  However, when combined with her inability to even pretend to converse with people, this is the largest detriment to this thread (and others).  AFDave and Paley at least advanced arguments (stupid ones, but at least new info was put forth occasionally); Ftk does not do this.

If she can't see the difference between her behavior and Lenny's (and the qualitative difference is high), she is one of the biggest wastes of bandwidth ever.  She should face that and be forced to acknowledge it.

Edited for better sentence structure, yikes.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,11:44

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11)
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In defence of Lenny. He has been fighting this battle for over 20 years. After only about 4, I am getting a tad bored with the same claims being made by creationists (even though I once believed them) being made years after they got refuted.

The "whack'a'mole" analogy is pretty right-on.

From experience: Some creationists are probably being honest in finding those claims as convincing. However, after a few posts if they stil claim those refutations of evolution are relevant, they have not followed any links at all.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,11:53

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,11:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11)
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In defence of Lenny. He has been fighting this battle for over 20 years. After only about 4, I am getting a tad bored with the same claims being made by creationists (even though I once believed them) being made years after they got refuted.

The "whack'a'mole" analogy is pretty right-on.

From experience: Some creationists are probably being honest in finding those claims as convincing. However, after a few posts if they stil claim those refutations of evolution are relevant, they have not followed any links at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that).

Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny.
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,11:59

It's too long for my signature, but this is fabulous.  It's too bad that Ftk hs decided that it's a good time to be banned; she's just hilarious.

The following is her chide of Ian Brown for needing evidence:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See, EVIDENCE for god doesn't need to be face to face.  Yet, evidence for ToE needs to happen in her kitchen and it has to be of the kinds turning into other kinds type.

Sometimes I just get stupider < reading her posts. >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,12:03

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:53)
Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that).

Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk always sounds civil. I also do not want her banned.

Ftk only sounds civil though. She has made a shed-load of claims here and consistently fails to back them up.

If Ftk gets banned over the reason Wes posted it is her fault and only her fault. She has the choice to either back the claim or retract.

You are being civil to Ftk but I have seen no evidence so-far that it is reciprocated. Yes, she sounds polite, then fails to answer (with evidence) questions regarding her claims.

Sorry for derailing your line of inquiry, but as soon as Ftk answers a question (with substance) of yours, I will STFU.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:03

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,11:59)
It's too long for my signature, but this is fabulous.  It's too bad that Ftk hs decided that it's a good time to be banned; she's just hilarious.

The following is her chide of Ian Brown for needing evidence:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See, EVIDENCE for god doesn't need to be face to face.  Yet, evidence for ToE needs to happen in her kitchen and it has to be of the kinds turning into other kinds type.

Sometimes I just get stupider < reading her posts. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't disagree with that. Evidence for God could be a whole lot of things (I submitted a post about a few of the things to her, hasn't got through yet), and I've never seen any of it.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:06

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:03)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:53)
Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that).

Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk always sounds civil. I also do not want her banned.

Ftk only sounds civil though. She has made a shed-load of claims here and consistently fails to back them up.

If Ftk gets banned over the reason Wes posted it is her fault and only her fault. She has the choice to either back the claim or retract.

You are being civil to Ftk but I have seen no evidence so-far that it is reciprocated. Yes, she sounds polite, then fails to answer (with evidence) questions regarding her claims.

Sorry for derailing your line of inquiry, but as soon as Ftk answers a question (with substance) of yours, I will STFU.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think she's being weasly as well (sorry FtK, but you are), however I dont think being weasly is a huge crime. It's annoying, and I would rather she answered, but to one such as I, where most things are a learning curve when it comes to psuedoscience (I had virtually no exposure to it, apart from quack medicine nonsense) any response she gives is top notch. As long as she answers a couple of questions at a time, in some way, even if it is just "read this" (let's not forget the constant stream of "read talk.origins") then I am happy with it. There's only one question I absolutely want her own 100% no faking or diverting opinion on, and if she answers that, I'll be more than pleased.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,12:07

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,11:59)
It's too long for my signature, but this is fabulous.  It's too bad that Ftk hs decided that it's a good time to be banned; she's just hilarious.

The following is her chide of Ian Brown for needing evidence:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See, EVIDENCE for god doesn't need to be face to face.  Yet, evidence for ToE needs to happen in her kitchen and it has to be of the kinds turning into other kinds type.

Sometimes I just get stupider < reading her posts. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, here's an example:

 

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

How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Translated: How unreasonable can you atheists be, that NO EVIDENCE AT ALL isn't enough for you???

FTK was unhappy that we never let her discuss religion here. Arguing religion is a perfect fit for her fact-free/empericism-free style of debating.
Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,12:10

FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

Louis
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:14

Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

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


To be honest, I never claimed she was civil to eveyone, or to anyone but me. I personally take her not just refusing to answer everything and claming up totally muttering (or yelling) about "those darned atheists" to be at least somewhat civil. She does answer (some of) my questions, and as long as she continues to do so politely then I shall continue to state she is civil to me.

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,12:14

Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
...
Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

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


FFS! That actualy did make me LOL! :D
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,12:21

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).

But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?

I believe that like myself, you are from the UK and this seems (on 1st impression) like an honest discussion. It aint. The ID/Creationist side have been outright lying for decades. You will see.

TBH. It shocked the hell outa me once I realised how bloody dishonest they are.
Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,12:22

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:14)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

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


To be honest, I never claimed she was civil to eveyone, or to anyone but me. I personally take her not just refusing to answer everything and claming up totally muttering (or yelling) about "those darned atheists" to be at least somewhat civil. She does answer (some of) my questions, and as long as she continues to do so politely then I shall continue to state she is civil to me.

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

All granted, however perhaps, Lenny's more exciting proclivities aside, dear sweet FTK started out this way. Accusations, persecution complex, avoiding questions she cannot answer, advocating evidence free relativist drivel, failing to support her claims, assuming bias where none exists etc all came from poor, persecuted FTK BEFORE Lenny's latest bout of rampant intolerance.

You're also not the only one who has been (almost without exception) civil and polite to FTK.

Louis
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:26

Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:22)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:14)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

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


To be honest, I never claimed she was civil to eveyone, or to anyone but me. I personally take her not just refusing to answer everything and claming up totally muttering (or yelling) about "those darned atheists" to be at least somewhat civil. She does answer (some of) my questions, and as long as she continues to do so politely then I shall continue to state she is civil to me.

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ian,

All granted, however perhaps, Lenny's more exciting proclivities aside, dear sweet FTK started out this way. Accusations, persecution complex, avoiding questions she cannot answer, advocating evidence free relativist drivel, failing to support her claims, assuming bias where none exists etc all came from poor, persecuted FTK BEFORE Lenny's latest bout of rampant intolerance.

You're also not the only one who has been (almost without exception) civil and polite to FTK.

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


I didn't see her beginings, so I cant make a claim on that. It would not surprise me one bit if this were the case, but I can't answer.

The thing is Louis, she has, up til now, be civil back. The minute she starts a screaming match/tries to accuse me of something I didn't do etc. I'll be right on ahead cheering Lenny all the way past the finish line. She hasn't yet, so I remain hopeful at least *I* can learn something about the other side's mindset, if nothing else, from FtK.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,12:28

Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:22)
...

You're also not the only one who has been (almost without exception) civil and polite to FTK.

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


Agreed.
But I doubt that Ftk sees it that way.

Pretty sad IMO.
Posted by: Louis on June 29 2007,12:40

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:26)
The thing is Louis, she has, up til now, be civil back. The minute she starts a screaming match/tries to accuse me of something I didn't do etc. I'll be right on ahead cheering Lenny all the way past the finish line. She hasn't yet, so I remain hopeful at least *I* can learn something about the other side's mindset, if nothing else, from FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disapproving of FTK's lack of civility in discussion does not equal cheering of Lenny.

Cheering of Lenny equals cheering of Lenny.

Again, how is FTK's conduct "civil"? I'll agree it's "polite" and that "polite" can be a subset of "civil", but I think FTK has been far from "civil".

You'll learn plenty about the creationist mindset from FTK, I wish you only the most wonderful things in your researches! Try to appreciate that others might have learned a few things too.

Louis
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:46

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).

But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?

I believe that like myself, you are from the UK and this seems (on 1st impression) like an honest discussion. It aint. The ID/Creationist side have been outright lying for decades. You will see.

TBH. It shocked the hell outa me once I realised how bloody dishonest they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh god no, I dont think the creos are anything but lying and/or deluded wierdos who feel so insecure in their beliefs they feel they have to force them on anyone and everyone, and then claim the other side are doing exactly that.

I just think SOME of them are, or at least can be, civil.
Posted by: stevestory on June 29 2007,12:47

Considering that she's gone over 400 posts without trying to have a sensible discussion about science, she was probably getting close to 'excessively annoying' anyway.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:49

Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:40)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:26)
The thing is Louis, she has, up til now, be civil back. The minute she starts a screaming match/tries to accuse me of something I didn't do etc. I'll be right on ahead cheering Lenny all the way past the finish line. She hasn't yet, so I remain hopeful at least *I* can learn something about the other side's mindset, if nothing else, from FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disapproving of FTK's lack of civility in discussion does not equal cheering of Lenny.

Cheering of Lenny equals cheering of Lenny.

Again, how is FTK's conduct "civil"? I'll agree it's "polite" and that "polite" can be a subset of "civil", but I think FTK has been far from "civil".

You'll learn plenty about the creationist mindset from FTK, I wish you only the most wonderful things in your researches! Try to appreciate that others might have learned a few things too.

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


Oh, I do understand all of that Louis, I wasn't saying that disagreeing with FtK was support of Lenny, but that if FtK were to brush me off, I WOULD support Lenny, as I feel I would be right to do so.

I think she IS being civil (and note the next two words carefully) towards me. She DOES answer the questions (frankly, from what I've seen of creos, any response AT ALL should be considered a bonus) even if they are in a diverting way. I just think that since she's been civil (at least in some respects) to me, she shouldn't be lambasted as being a vile evil liar in total. She isn't. She just is (rightly or wrongly) to a few of you.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,12:54

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
           
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
       

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

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have I missed anything?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 29 2007,12:56

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
             
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
       

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

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that's a pretty fair covering. I think you have it all.
Posted by: stevestory on June 29 2007,12:58

If FtK wants to complain she's being mistreated, she's welcome to set a better example. However, something tells me that were I to visit her blog, I would not be allowed to post 447 straight comments with no interference.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 29 2007,13:02

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
 

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

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that pretty well sums it up.  But now I have to explain to the office staff why I am giggling so hard.  Thanks a lot...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2007,13:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
             
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
       

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

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternatively:

1)Ftk makes a claim.
2)It gets disputed with evidence.
3)Ftk: Waits for an excuse to dodge claim 2).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,13:10

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
             
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
         

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

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Completely brilliant.

I think Steve Story is now obliged to hand over moderating duties to you.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,13:14

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,13:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)

Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternatively:

1)Ftk makes a claim.
2)It gets disputed with evidence.
3)Ftk: Waits for an excuse to dodge claim 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True.  Now, I'd like to suggest adding an IF..THEN statement that once we've been through this routine...say.....four times we go directly to END. It is almost enough to make me looking forward to Steve telling us about the habanero pot pie he made last night.


Posted by: stevestory on June 29 2007,13:16

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,14:10)
I think Steve Story is now obliged to hand over moderating duties to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone who wants those duties, please send me a PM making the case that you'll be a good moderator.
Posted by: stevestory on June 29 2007,13:17

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,14:14)
It is almost enough to make me looking forward to Steve telling us about the habanero pot pie he made last night.


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


:D
Posted by: deejay on June 29 2007,13:18

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,10:51)
 Ftk, as a controling point, try and parody an "evilutionist" on an ID site. Pretend that you suport evolution on UD, argue pro-evo arguments there. See how long it takes to get banned.


Can you really not see the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, this assumes that Ftk is capable of making pro-evolution arguments.  She's had months of opportunity here to learn them, and years of opportunities elsewhere.  Currently, her understanding of evolutionary theory isn't good enough to pass a basic high school level test on the subjet.  This just strikes me as really sad.

A couple of rhetorical questions, Ftk:  Do you understand that in spite of the laughs some here have had at your expense, many people on this board have made a very genuine effort to improve your understanding of evolutionary theory?  In spite of their best efforts, for which they stand to receive no tangible rewards, you are deciding to play the victim.  Why is that?

Just to be clear, you don't have to answer these questions here.  But you might want to find someone who can help you find constructive answers to them.  Good luck to you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2007,14:34

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
         

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,14:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
           

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, there, Richard. It's okay. All men have feelings.  They are angry, hungry, thirsty, horny, and sleepy. If you have a feeling that isn't on that list, I don't know what to say.

Yes I do: HOMO.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2007,14:47

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,14:42)
Yes I do: HOMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR SAME SEX CIVIL CEREMONY?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,15:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
         

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard, I would have you know that "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"  is an exact quote from a post you made here last February 31st. Look it up if you don't believe me.  :angry:
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,15:05

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,15:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
           

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard, I would have you know that "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"  is an exact quote from a post you made here last February 31st. Look it up if you don't believe me.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's just upset because I wrote that in an over-the-top pretentious British accent.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2007,15:11

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,15:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
           

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard, I would have you know that "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"  is an exact quote from a post you made here last February 31st. Look it up if you don't believe me.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link me up, Chatterbox, or You'll get banninated in 6 days by Wes the destroyer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,15:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,15:11)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,15:02)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
               

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


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

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


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


[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard, I would have you know that "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"  is an exact quote from a post you made here last February 31st. Look it up if you don't believe me.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link me up, Chatterbox, or You'll get banninated in 6 days by Wes the destroyer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, pal, I got your 'link' RIGHT HERE:

:angry:
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,15:24

steve:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If FtK wants to complain she's being mistreated, she's welcome to set a better example. However, something tells me that were I to visit her blog, I would not be allowed to post 447 straight comments with no interference.

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



Hmmm.  I made about 2 comments (on topic and constructive) before I was told I couldn't post anymore unless I was nice.  Later I was able to post a couple handfuls more.

She then allowed some of my anonymous comments through because she doesn't know how to flag IP addresses.  I then told her who anonymous was while continuing to be completely on topic.  I'd be banned now except she doesn't know how to do it.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on June 29 2007,15:39

Blipey, shamelessly quote-mined:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
she doesn't know how to do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Must not be completely ignorant.  Doesn't she claim to have kids?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,15:47

Quote (Steviepinhead @ June 29 2007,15:39)
Blipey, shamelessly quote-mined:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
she doesn't know how to do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Must not be completely ignorant.  Doesn't she claim to have kids?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooh, can I play?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If FtK wants... I would... be allowed... with no interference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey! No wonder Salvador enjoys this!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 29 2007,17:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,10:14)
FtK makes the claim that a series of posts that she made in the Walt Brown thread are analogous to other series of posts that Lenny Flank has posted elsewhere. Let's look at the content:



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

[Post 1] Lenny is a weirdo.

[Post 2] I'm practicing posting Lenny style.

[Post 3] I wonder how many separate posts in a row I could accumulate before Steve would ban me.

[Post 4] Evolution is dead, dead, dead.

Bwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[Post 5] Lenny is the antichrist...

[Post 6] I don't like Lenny's avitar.

[Post 7] Lenny the loser makes me barf.

[Post 8] Mimicking Lenny makes me feel like I'm a 3rd grader.  Creepy.


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



I'm going to invoke the following rule:



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

Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.

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



FtK can back up the claim that Lenny has made such a series of posts, including the same lack of content and reliance upon simple insult for the same number of posts, or retract the claim. I will determine how well convincing a proposed demonstration is. FtK has one week to accomplish one or the other.

Back in your court, FtK. If there is no response doing one or the other by July 6th, I'll consider that a default.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In case there's any question about it, I don't actually give a flying . . .  uh . . .  fig, what FTK thinks.  About me, or about anything else.  (shrug)

She needs serious therapy.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 29 2007,17:33

Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:25)
No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, FTK, your martyrdom wheelbarrow will be full for at least a YEAR now !!!!!!!!!!!!

Congratulations.  Nicely done.

Enjoy your martyrdom.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 29 2007,18:37

Well, at least FTK has once again successfully managed to turn this from a discussion about HER, into a discussion about ME.  (shrug)
Posted by: Steviepinhead on June 29 2007,18:53

Well, but that's okay.

Having seen her picture, you're definitely cuter.

And I haven't even seen your picture (but I do know that small scaly animals love you and pizza boys can stand to make deliveries to your door...).

Whereas, how many snakes or pizza boys are willing to go to FtK's door.

There's a reason why these people have to get 'em when they're young.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 29 2007,20:02

This has got be some kind of heavenly troll-stew for FTK.  Stir occasionally, and AtBC boils itself.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 30 2007,03:38

Well, at least right up to the point when no further dodging is permitted.
Posted by: Ftk on June 30 2007,09:04

I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here, but evidently he's not going to relay that to his "minions".  

I will not be "retracting" anything.  Actually, Lenny should be apologizing to Ian and I for not keeping his word and staying off the thread.

The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.  So, if he is some sort of science wiz master, I've never been subject to his words of wisdom.

Ian and I have found a private venue in which to discuss various issues further.  

Don't worry, I won't cry martyrdom in regard to my departure.  I'll let Elsberry off the hook so he won't be accused of using the "banninator button".   It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.

Nice meeting all of you though.  It's been interesting.

Bye Richard... ;)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 30 2007,09:11

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here, but evidently he's not going to relay that to his "minions".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, perhaps he was just being protective of your privacy; didn't we have a conversation once about posting the contents of private emails without the permission of the sender? And isn't it nice to be able to post here and explain yourself in your own words without having a moderator intervene? :p
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,09:14

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again?


Then leave, already.


Bye.  (waving as you ride off into the sunset on your snow white horse)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 30 2007,09:32

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here, but evidently he's not going to relay that to his "minions".  

I will not be "retracting" anything.  Actually, Lenny should be apologizing to Ian and I for not keeping his word and staying off the thread.

The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.  So, if he is some sort of science wiz master, I've never been subject to his words of wisdom.

Ian and I have found a private venue in which to discuss various issues further.  

Don't worry, I won't cry martyrdom in regard to my departure.  I'll let Elsberry off the hook so he won't be accused of using the "banninator button".   It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with your folks, and it's futile.

Nice meeting all of you though.  It's been interesting.

Bye Richard... ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you've already gone off in a huff several times. Nobody cared then either.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will not be "retracting" anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



except your neck.
Posted by: Louis on June 30 2007,10:14

FTK,

Thank you for this opportunity:

< Don't go away mad (Just go away) >

Pay particular attention to the lyrics from about 2 mins and 25 seconds into the song.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,10:42

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BTW, for those who have not already seen, I offer:


< http://www.geocities.com/lflank >

Around 400 pages worth of science and analysis.

Alas, all now essentially irrelevant, and of interest only for historical reasons, since ID is now dead as a mackerel, and the anti-ID fight is now all but over.  

All that remains is to laugh and make snide remarks at the antics of the ID diehards.
Posted by: PennyBright on June 30 2007,11:01

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.  So, if he is some sort of science wiz master, I've never been subject to his words of wisdom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless my grasp of the English language is utterly deficient, I am quite certain that Lenny has never intended to enlighten anyone.

What he does mean to do (as I read it)  is to make glaringly obvious in a succinct and un-ignorable way the specific objections to and/or flaws in a given statement.

And really,  given the attention spans and level of reading comprehension demonstrated by most creationists,  the one line per post thing is almost forgiveable.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 30 2007,11:03

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 30 2007,10:42)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BTW, for those who have not already seen, I offer:


< http://www.geocities.com/lflank >

Around 400 pages worth of science and analysis.

Alas, all now essentially irrelevant, and of interest only for historical reasons, since ID is now dead as a mackerel, and the anti-ID fight is now all but over.  

All that remains is to laugh and make snide remarks at the antics of the ID diehards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny,  

I've been loosing sleep. "Dead as a mackerel" isn't any more or less dead than, say, "dead as a cocker spaniel."
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,12:50

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 30 2007,11:03)
I've been loosing sleep. "Dead as a mackerel" isn't any more or less dead than, say, "dead as a cocker spaniel."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I use it in memory of our dear departed Fish Guy (who alas would have throughly enjoyed FTK's latest histrionic departure).

Anyway, saying "dead as a mackerel" evokes the mental image of a cold slimy fish lying still in the icebox, with slack jaw and one big round eye staring vacantly up at you.

"Dead as a cocker spaniel" just evokes the image of a big brown splash on the highway.

While indeed both accurately depict the current status of the ID movement, the "dead fish" image is, at least to me, far more humorous.



Geez, first I had to explain "penii", now I gotta explain "dead as a mackerel".  No WONDER satirists stay away from scientist audiences . . . . .

;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,12:58

Quote (PennyBright @ June 30 2007,11:01)
Unless my grasp of the English language is utterly deficient, I am quite certain that Lenny has never intended to enlighten anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why attempt the impossible?  If I want to talk science with the pig-ignorant, I can discuss Einstein with my goldfish and get the same level of effectiveness (the difference of course being that at least the goldfish isn't WILLFULLY pig-ignorant).


I'm here to laugh at the nutters and make fun of them.  Nothing more. It's all they are worth nowadays.

If, in the future, the nutters ever become an effective political movement again, I'll happily go back to stomping their movement into the dirt again, as quickly and efficiently as I can.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 30 2007,12:59

Quote (Ftk @ June 30 2007,09:04)
I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here, but evidently he's not going to relay that to his "minions".  

I will not be "retracting" anything.  Actually, Lenny should be apologizing to Ian and I for not keeping his word and staying off the thread.

The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.  So, if he is some sort of science wiz master, I've never been subject to his words of wisdom.

Ian and I have found a private venue in which to discuss various issues further.  

Don't worry, I won't cry martyrdom in regard to my departure.  I'll let Elsberry off the hook so he won't be accused of using the "banninator button".   It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with your folks, and it's futile.

Nice meeting all of you though.  It's been interesting.

Bye Richard... ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other news. I stepped in dogshit mowing the lawn today.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 30 2007,14:52

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 30 2007,12:58)
Why attempt the impossible?  If I want to talk science with the pig-ignorant, I can discuss Einstein with my goldfish and get the same level of effectiveness (the difference of course being that at least the goldfish isn't WILLFULLY pig-ignorant).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny, now you are REALLY confusing me with all the complicated animals. Talk to a goldfish for pig-ignorance? Is there a pig I can talk to for fish-ignorance?

I think Lenny is telling us that ID is ALIVE and FTK is ERUDITE. RUN, EVERYBODY! RUN!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,15:37

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 30 2007,14:52)
Lenny, now you are REALLY confusing me with all the complicated animals. Talk to a goldfish for pig-ignorance? Is there a pig I can talk to for fish-ignorance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I could talk to the animals, just imagine it,
Chattin' with a chimp in chimpanzee,
Imagine talking to a tiger, chatting with a cheetah,
What a neat achievement it would be!

If we could talk to the animals, learn their languages,
Maybe get an animal degree,
I'd study elephant and eagle, buffalo and beagle,
Alligator, guinea pig, and flea!

I would converse in polar bear and python,
And I would curse in fluent kangaroo,
If people ask me "can you speak rhinoceros?"
I'd say "of courserous! Can't you?"
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,15:42

Actually, when it comes to discussion with creationists, perhaps THIS stanza is most appropriate:



If I spoke slang to orangutans
The advantages why any fool on earth could plainly see!
Discussing Eastern art and dramas
With intellectual llamas
That’s a big step forward you’ll agree!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 30 2007,15:46

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 30 2007,15:42)
Actually, when it comes to discussion with creationists, perhaps THIS stanza is most appropriate:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I understand the problem - nowhere in those verses does it mention that you can understand pirahna!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 30 2007,15:53

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 30 2007,15:46)
Now I understand the problem - nowhere in those verses does it mention that you can understand pirahna!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a goldfish that THINKS it's a pirahna.

;)
Posted by: Henry J on June 30 2007,17:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, arguing without having an actual argument can have that effect.

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 30 2007,17:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 30 2007,09:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will not be "retracting" anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



except your neck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Badum-tssssch!
Posted by: blipey on June 30 2007,20:06

Ftk does indeed leave her best for last (oh, right, she'll be back--I forgot).  But it almost was worth breathing in her complete stupidity for this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I present Ftk's ultra-intelligent friends defending their points lucidly and without any scientific challenges:

< AFDave >

< R Josiah Magnusson >

< Paley and Muslims >

< AFDave and his trouble with words >

And this doesn't even include doozies like Paley trying to defend geo-centrism.

As I asked you (she'll be back), Ftk, at JoeG's blog:  have you ever looked at who is on your side?
Posted by: stevestory on June 30 2007,20:24

I don't see anything at that < ID Advisor to Chapman 08 > link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?
Posted by: blipey on June 30 2007,20:33

Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,20:24)
I don't see anything at that < ID Advisor to Chapman 08 > link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What???  Are you calling Viagra and Phentremine nothing?  Those things HELP PEOPLE, you selfish bastard!

[/junkie]
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 30 2007,20:45

Does this mean he's a pusher now?

My how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 30 2007,20:51

Sex and drugs were the first two of my own 12-step recovery process from fundyism.  (More the former than the latter, but whatever.)

Perhaps there's hope for the boy yet!

See FtK?  Just follow J's example.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 05 2007,11:01



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

If there is no response doing one or the other by July 6th, I'll consider that a default.

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



Another day and a half to the yanking of posting privileges.

Some people apparently cannot admit to being anything less than modern prophets, whose every word must be considered as absolutely and unwaveringly true. Even when they are false, or exaggerations.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2007,11:06

It became a points scoring exercise rather than proper inquiry.


Sadly theirs a lot of pseudoscience that the motivated can google.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on July 05 2007,11:09

Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,20:24)
I don't see anything at that < ID Advisor to Chapman 08 > link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That looks like classic abandoned blog syndrome. Spammers have taken over.
Posted by: Louis on July 05 2007,11:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2007,17:01)
Some people apparently cannot admit to being anything less than modern prophets, whose every word must be considered as absolutely and unwaveringly true. Even when they are false, or exaggerations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But but but I **AM** a modern prophet whose every word must be considered as absolutely and unwaveringly true. I've bever stated a falsehood or an exaggeration in my life*.

Oh you mean FTK.....erm ha ha ha erm forget I said anything.

Louis

* Well apart from that ONE time, but she was hot....
Posted by: Henry J on July 05 2007,12:43

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2007,11:01)
Some people apparently cannot admit to being anything less than modern prophets, whose every word must be considered as absolutely and unwaveringly true. Even when they are false, or exaggerations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like the one < here > ?
:p

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 05 2007,13:47

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 05 2007,11:09)
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,20:24)
I don't see anything at that < ID Advisor to Chapman 08 > link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That looks like classic abandoned blog syndrome. Spammers have taken over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The internet equivalent of a piece of property being taken over by dandelions, spiders, and poison oak.
Posted by: PennyBright on July 05 2007,14:50

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2007,13:47)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 05 2007,11:09)
 
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,20:24)
I don't see anything at that < ID Advisor to Chapman 08 > link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That looks like classic abandoned blog syndrome. Spammers have taken over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The internet equivalent of a piece of property being taken over by dandelions, spiders, and poison oak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that dandelions, spiders and possibly even poison oak have some value.

quoth the woman, deleting the daily several hundred drug/porn/used car spams from her blog.  < Akismet > is seriously great.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2009,16:23

IDC cheerleader FtK makes an appearance at < PT >:



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



In your face evo boys.…

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009...._p.html >

There’s your audio of the debate…straight from the Discovery Institute.

Your sorry theory will be going down the toilet soon enough…first we’ll wait until global warming has been completely flushed. YOUR NEXT.…

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



Same vapidity as before...
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 04 2009,16:29

How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2009,16:30

I got a picture of a green heron a couple of days ago... wait, that would be for the "wildlife" thread.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 04 2009,16:45

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 04 2009,14:29)
How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which supports the contention that FTK is a banana.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 04 2009,19:49

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2009,17:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 04 2009,14:29)
How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which supports the contention that FTK is a banana.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems like her typical rantings and ravens.
Posted by: Jasper on Dec. 04 2009,20:16

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 04 2009,17:29)
How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, be careful mentioning herons.

FtK's kids might get their guns.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 05 2009,09:52

Never mind the herons, what about the piranha?
Posted by: lkeithlu on Dec. 05 2009,12:22

Awwww...now you've gone and made me all nostalgic-like...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 05 2009,12:41

Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 05 2009,12:22)
Awwww...now you've gone and made me all nostalgic-like...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That nostalgia will fade quickly, just go visit her blog. She's still posting there, lots of irrational and denialist tripe. But comments seem to be disallowed.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 05 2009,15:12

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 04 2009,19:49)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2009,17:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 04 2009,14:29)
How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which supports the contention that FTK is a banana.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems like her typical rantings and ravens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and typical Creo Spelling too :)

Somebody please take one for the team, visit her site and report back on how her RANDOM capitalization thing is going?
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 06 2009,16:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2009,12:41)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 05 2009,12:22)
Awwww...now you've gone and made me all nostalgic-like...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That nostalgia will fade quickly, just go visit her blog. She's still posting there, lots of irrational and denialist tripe. But comments seem to be disallowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think the comments have been disallowed--exactly.  It appears that she has erased every comment that has ever been posted on her blog.  Now, THAT'S dedication to ignorance.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 06 2009,17:57

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 06 2009,16:58)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2009,12:41)
 
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 05 2009,12:22)
Awwww...now you've gone and made me all nostalgic-like...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That nostalgia will fade quickly, just go visit her blog. She's still posting there, lots of irrational and denialist tripe. But comments seem to be disallowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think the comments have been disallowed--exactly.  It appears that she has erased every comment that has ever been posted on her blog.  Now, THAT'S dedication to ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure enough. Took a page right out of the Luskin/Crowther book at EN&V. If you don't have comments, some folks won't be able to see just how ignorant your blog posts are.

And the rest of us will just laugh.

Looks like Wes had the right idea in revoking her edit privileges here...
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 06 2009,22:03

I wonder if the fact that so much of her ignorance is saved right here in these pages ever dawns on her?  Probably not.  She most likely thinks that erasing her comments is a clean finish.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 07 2009,06:04

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 06 2009,22:03)
I wonder if the fact that so much of her ignorance is saved right here in these pages ever dawns on her?  Probably not.  She most likely thinks that erasing her comments is a clean finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the fact that she saved all the evidence of her ignorance on her own blog pages is an indication that she thinks that stuff is worth saving in all its brilliance...

So I'm guessing that she is convinced that anything she writes is correct, insightful, and needs to stand for all eternity as evidence of her contribution to the demise of Darwinism.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 07 2009,10:54

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,06:04)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 06 2009,22:03)
I wonder if the fact that so much of her ignorance is saved right here in these pages ever dawns on her?  Probably not.  She most likely thinks that erasing her comments is a clean finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the fact that she saved all the evidence of her ignorance on her own blog pages is an indication that she thinks that stuff is worth saving in all its brilliance...

So I'm guessing that she is convinced that anything she writes is correct, insightful, and needs to stand for all eternity as evidence of her contribution to the demise of Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree.  What I was trying to get at is the science-deniers' tendency to think that erasure is an appropriate (and logically sound?) response to criticism.
Posted by: rossum on Dec. 07 2009,13:55

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 07 2009,10:54)
I agree.  What I was trying to get at is the science-deniers' tendency to think that erasure is an appropriate (and logically sound?) response to criticism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since they seem to think that everything true and worth knowing is written in THE BOOK, it stands to reason that if something is erased from THE BOOK then it cannot have been true or worth knowing in the first place.  QED.

rossum
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 07 2009,23:02

All I can say is, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

Like a crocodile creeping up on Captain Pirate "Evo Dead in Ten Years" Dembski ... oh, sorry, that's Captain Captain Pirate Pirate Dembski.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 08 2009,08:56

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 07 2009,23:02)
All I can say is, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

Like a crocodile creeping up on Captain Pirate "Evo Dead in Ten Years" Dembski ... oh, sorry, that's Captain Captain Pirate Pirate Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski's croc nemesis would go Tik Taak, Tik Taak.
Posted by: Rrr on Dec. 08 2009,18:27

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 08 2009,08:56)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 07 2009,23:02)
All I can say is, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

Like a crocodile creeping up on Captain Pirate "Evo Dead in Ten Years" Dembski ... oh, sorry, that's Captain Captain Pirate Pirate Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski's croc nemesis would go Tik Taak, Tik Taak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies for butting in here. IMHO, there's also some amount of Tik Taalk going on.
As you were, however: Body Body Odor Odor DWilly -- you were saying?
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 09 2009,13:09

Quote (Rrr @ Dec. 08 2009,18:27)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 08 2009,08:56)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 07 2009,23:02)
All I can say is, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

Like a crocodile creeping up on Captain Pirate "Evo Dead in Ten Years" Dembski ... oh, sorry, that's Captain Captain Pirate Pirate Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski's croc nemesis would go Tik Taak, Tik Taak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies for butting in here. IMHO, there's also some amount of Tik Taalk going on.
As you were, however: Body Body Odor Odor DWilly -- you were saying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DWilly nilly, I was saying that I think a certain someone actually ghostwrote Kent Hovind's < dissytasty >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Aint' find-n-replace a grand feature in Word? ;) Or maybe FTK and Hovie were separated at birth?
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 27 2009,12:27

FTK, < it's called an Andy Warhol >. It's also at the Art Institute of Chicago, which opened to ALA members at the convention this summer.



And no, Obama was never a curator there. ;)
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 27 2009,17:24

that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 27 2009,17:34

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 28 2009,15:51

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
Posted by: khan on Dec. 28 2009,16:25

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was obscure.
Posted by: Rrr on Dec. 29 2009,13:28

Quote (khan @ Dec. 28 2009,16:25)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
   
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was obscure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies if this was not a query, but permit me to endeavour to < explain >, if I may.

AFAIK, Rooibos is a hot stimulating drink prepared like tea from the twigs of a "red bush" (instead of fermented leaves of the camelia tree) and also enjoyed in a like manner, primarily in southern Africa.

Ergo, a red tea bag. QED, etc.

It will all get clearer after a cuppa, luv.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 29 2009,13:44

Quote (Rrr @ Dec. 29 2009,14:28)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 28 2009,16:25)
   
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
     
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was obscure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies if this was not a query, but permit me to endeavour to < explain >, if I may.

AFAIK, Rooibos is a hot stimulating drink prepared like tea from the twigs of a "red bush" (instead of fermented leaves of the camelia tree) and also enjoyed in a like manner, primarily in southern Africa.

Ergo, a red tea bag. QED, etc.

It will all get clearer after a cuppa, luv.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understood it because I drink rooibos.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 29 2009,14:15

I've seen bush tea in the supermarket. Apparently popularized by the book series, "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency  ."
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 29 2009,14:49

Quote (Rrr @ Dec. 29 2009,13:28)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 28 2009,16:25)
   
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
     
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was obscure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies if this was not a query, but permit me to endeavour to < explain >, if I may.

AFAIK, Rooibos is a hot stimulating drink prepared like tea from the twigs of a "red bush" (instead of fermented leaves of the camelia tree) and also enjoyed in a like manner, primarily in southern Africa.

Ergo, a red tea bag. QED, etc.

It will all get clearer after a cuppa, luv.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Red Tea Bag sounds like a club in Moscow.
Posted by: Rrr on Dec. 29 2009,16:27

Quote (khan @ Dec. 29 2009,13:44)
Quote (Rrr @ Dec. 29 2009,14:28)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 28 2009,16:25)
   
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
     
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
     
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teabagging is socialist?   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if it's rooibos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was obscure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies if this was not a query, but permit me to endeavour to < explain >, if I may.

AFAIK, Rooibos is a hot stimulating drink prepared like tea from the twigs of a "red bush" (instead of fermented leaves of the camelia tree) and also enjoyed in a like manner, primarily in southern Africa.

Ergo, a red tea bag. QED, etc.

It will all get clearer after a cuppa, luv.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understood it because I drink rooibos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're allright then. I agree, it was obscure, though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 01 2010,22:46

< http://www.cocomment.com//comments/FtK >
Posted by: didymos on Aug. 01 2010,23:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 01 2010,20:46)
< http://www.cocomment.com//comments/FtK >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seize the Thread Necromancer!  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 02 2010,13:15



Richard! Is th-th-that your reflection in the glass?  [swoons]

:p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 02 2010,13:24

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 02 2010,13:15)


Richard! Is th-th-that your reflection in the glass?  [swoons]

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the butler..
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 02 2010,23:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 02 2010,13:24)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 02 2010,13:15)


Richard! Is th-th-that your reflection in the glass?  [swoons]

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the butler..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which one?

The downstairs butler, your personal valet, or the doorman/chauffeur?
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 04 2010,04:09

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 02 2010,19:15)


Richard! Is th-th-that your reflection in the glass?  [swoons]

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DEAR SHIT! IT LIVES!

FLEE! FLEEEEEEEE! IT MIGHT POST MORE!!!!!

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 04 2010,10:24

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?   < NO >

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?   <
No, I believe they would....that is why I was giving them the warning that someone may be listing personal information about me.
>

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?  < I have not checked into that so I do not know.  I would assume that most do not. >

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?  < I believe I answered that on this page or the last page. >  checking the previous 3 pages, there is no answer from Ftk as regards this question.  There are however, many complaints about having to answer questions and the ridiculous expectations of such. –blipey

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?  < !!! This question is ridiculous.  Obviously, he wouldn't, and I'd have to ask Behe if he was every allowed to go through every book and article one by one and make two separate piles of what he had and had not read.  But, I tried desperately to explain in an earlier discussion that just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered nor should they be regarded as "fact". > I’m counting this one as answered because of the first sentence “obviously, he wouldn’t”.  That being said, the commentary after that phrase proves that she’ll never be able to answer question 6.  perhaps this is why she stopped answering questions. –blipey

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008? Nebraska banned the electric chair as the sole method of execution.  Did anything else happen?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC, answer provided for Ftk by blipey

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC, answer provided by blipey

27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000, answer provided by blipey

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?


29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?  yes

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

37. There are at least 40 distinct STDs. Were they distributed evenly among the passengers on Noah's ark, or was there like one Ultra-skank who had all 40?

38. Do you think that gravity is “just a theory” and therefore should be “taught critically” (to use the ID phrase)?

39. If not, what makes the details we don’t know about gravity different from the details we don’t know about evolution?

40. Do you believe Common Descent = Common Design?

41. Do you believe that Macroevolution = (not observed so did not happen)?

42. Despite the documented evidence, do you believe that macroevolution is based solely on historical inference?

43. Can you define macroevolution (in your own words)?

44. What evidence would confirm this?

45. Did God just make it look like the horse evolved, but in fact tinkered with the design along the way?

46.  Is the horse the only thing that evolved, but everything else is designed?

47. Given your statement that the idea of the Geologic Column was introduced by Darwinists after 1860, FtK, were the "periods" and "eras" added after 1860 "to fit the evolutionary theory"?

48. Or, since the early 19th century work by Smith, Cuvier, et al. led to the identification of the Geological Column in the 1820’s, were they (periods and eras) devised by creationists before 1860 to fit the evidence?

49.  Why is the Cambrian Explosion a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

50.  Did the Cambrian Explosion occur?

51.  If yes, can Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory still be valid?

And of course a new one:

52.  How's the kids' paper on Walt Brown's Grand Canyon coming?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 04 2010,22:32

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 04 2010,10:24)
And of course a new one:

52.  How's the kids' paper on Walt Brown's Grand Canyon coming?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Clownie Killjoy comes around and destroys Richards chances at some hot MILF action.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2010,23:13

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2010,22:32)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 04 2010,10:24)
And of course a new one:

52.  How's the kids' paper on Walt Brown's Grand Canyon coming?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Clownie Killjoy comes around and destroys Richards chances at some hot MILF action.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FILF, actually.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 04 2010,23:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2010,23:13)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2010,22:32)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 04 2010,10:24)
And of course a new one:

52.  How's the kids' paper on Walt Brown's Grand Canyon coming?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Clownie Killjoy comes around and destroys Richards chances at some hot MILF action.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FILF, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's actually quite brilliant.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 05 2010,02:50

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 05 2010,05:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2010,23:13)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2010,22:32)
 
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 04 2010,10:24)
And of course a new one:

52.  How's the kids' paper on Walt Brown's Grand Canyon coming?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Clownie Killjoy comes around and destroys Richards chances at some hot MILF action.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FILF, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's actually quite brilliant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably optimistic though...even for Rich and his see through bedrooms.

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 05 2010,08:37

Basically worthless comment but it must be said:

Wolfhound lurvs Blipey.

That is all.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Aug. 05 2010,11:30

Blipey, being a guy and all, is likely to have issues with coming right out and saying that he loves Wolfie back.

But that's what friends are for (Blipey may not have previously known I was such a good friend but, hey, who can have too many friends -- well, except on Facebook...), so I'll say it for him:

"Aw, shucks...!  Blipey, hm, hr, l- lo-, koff, Blipey loves Wolfhound TOO!"
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 05 2010,12:46

hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.

Carlson, I’ll never rid myself of the clown...he still emails me regularly... evil obsessive freak boy clown that he is....



His face haunts my dreams....bleh...never liked clowns and hate stalkers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 05 2010,12:52

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 05 2010,12:46)
hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F is for Fundy, cupcake!
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 05 2010,12:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,12:52)

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 05 2010,12:46)
hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F is for Fundy, cupcake!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahh...and here I thought it was 'floozy'. Guess I was close though...  :D
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 05 2010,14:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,13:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 05 2010,12:46)
hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F is for Fundy, cupcake!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank God. "Flouncer" had me up nights.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 05 2010,15:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2010,21:13)
FILF, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yech.  No such thing.

What's the ugliest part of your body?
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

- fz
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 05 2010,17:42

Aw shucks, I luv not only wolfie, but stevie as well!  Even Richard, but he won't have me.

But most especially, I love FTK, because that is what the Lord tells me to do.  Isn't that right, FTK?  Unless of course, someone doesn't believe the same things as I do, then the Lord apparently doesn't care so much.

On a long list of things you still need to do to edify yourself, Ftk, please look up "regularly".  I don't think it means what you think it means.

BTW, how's the Grand Canyon paper coming?  While discussing, perhaps you could expound on some of the "details" that Walt Brown so exceptionally covered?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 05 2010,23:24

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Aug. 05 2010,12:30)
Blipey, being a guy and all, is likely to have issues with coming right out and saying that he loves Wolfie back.

But that's what friends are for (Blipey may not have previously known I was such a good friend but, hey, who can have too many friends -- well, except on Facebook...), so I'll say it for him:

"Aw, shucks...!  Blipey, hm, hr, l- lo-, koff, Blipey loves Wolfhound TOO!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but Wolfie holds Pinheads first in her heart.  *hugs*
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 06 2010,06:00

Quote (Wolfhound @ Aug. 05 2010,23:24)
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Aug. 05 2010,12:30)
Blipey, being a guy and all, is likely to have issues with coming right out and saying that he loves Wolfie back.

But that's what friends are for (Blipey may not have previously known I was such a good friend but, hey, who can have too many friends -- well, except on Facebook...), so I'll say it for him:

"Aw, shucks...!  Blipey, hm, hr, l- lo-, koff, Blipey loves Wolfhound TOO!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but Wolfie holds Pinheads first in her heart.  *hugs*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Louis on Aug. 06 2010,06:08

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 05 2010,20:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,13:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 05 2010,12:46)
hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F is for Fundy, cupcake!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank God. "Flouncer" had me up nights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the Great Green Arkleseizure! We've had two posts from it! This is not good oh my knobs and nubbins no this is not good.

Shall we start placing (friendly, I'm skint) bets on:

a) how/when the persecution complex will reassert itself
b) what/who will trigger it
c) when the flounce out will be
d) when the return will be
e) how much flirtation with Rich occurs before I have to get a sick bag

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 06 2010,08:00

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 06 2010,06:08)
Shall we start placing (friendly, I'm skint) bets on:

a) how/when the persecution complex will reassert itself
b) what/who will trigger it
c) when the flounce out will be
d) when the return will be
e) how much flirtation with Rich occurs before I have to get a sick bag

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


The only bet I'm willing to place is that she will never address the questions in blipey's post.

But I suspect that there are no takers for that one...

Time for popcorn.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 06 2010,22:16

Oh fun...the gang's all here.

How's that ticker Dave?  You doin' okay?  Eating healthy and exercising??  

Not to worry Louis...3-5 posts will be my max...just checking in to see that all is well w/my obnoxious Darwin buddies.  How's that little tyke, btw?  Have any current pictures to share??

Hi Bill <waves>....how's life treatin' ya?

Carlson, you still working those horses?  

J-Dog....you still as goofy as ever?  hehe

Richard...next time I'm in Chicago, I going to look you up and check out that place of yours...kewl looking.

Hope ya'll are all doing well both personally and career wise.  Miss you dingbats sometimes...:)
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 06 2010,22:40

Aw, that's awfully nice.  A cry for attention wrapped in fake concern for our happiness.  We miss you too, FTK (probably not for the same reasons).
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 06 2010,22:45

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 06 2010,22:40)
Aw, that's awfully nice.  A cry for attention wrapped in fake concern for our happiness.  We miss you too, FTK (probably not for the same reasons).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...um, no, clown.  I don't recall any concern where you're involved except for myself stalker boy.  Now, you've used up one of my 5 posts, which I'm sure you're thrilled about.  Fly away mosquito or I will have to swat you.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 06 2010,22:52

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 06 2010,22:45)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 06 2010,22:40)
Aw, that's awfully nice.  A cry for attention wrapped in fake concern for our happiness.  We miss you too, FTK (probably not for the same reasons).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...um, no, clown.  I don't recall any concern where you're involved except for myself stalker boy.  Now, you've used up one of my 5 posts, which I'm sure you're thrilled about.  Fly away mosquito or I will have to swat you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me get this straight.

1. You self-imposed a limit of 5 posts.
2. You use one of them to cry persecution (you by me).
3. In this same post you blame me for forcing you to use up 20% of your quota.

Really?

I see several solutions, not limited to the following:

1.  Grow some and don't let me dictate your actions.
2.  Grow some and stay to chat a bit.
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 07 2010,04:49

I consider myself an outsider at AtBC. Being just an old European, there may some fine details that I am unable to sense.

But anyway, it beats me why you bother with that venomous-fanged creature, (or maybe -tongue would be more accurate)?

She isn't even fun  like UcD, Scordova and all the rest of our chewtoys; just compulsively obnoxious. But that's your own business; I won't waste any more time on this thread.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,05:19

Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2010,10:49)
I consider myself an outsider at AtBC. Being just an old European...

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are not an outsider. Many of us are Europeans, youngish and old! I reckon we should instigate a takeover anyway. At least when the British were the world's most important colonial superpower there was tea....and occasional genocide but it's impolite to mention that. Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.

Now the French, they can make good tea. Nice bunch the French. The Scandinavians do weird things with seafood and urine and had Vikings (which are cool and therefore ok by me). The Germans invented a million types of sausage, but had that unfortunate brush with fascism. The Italians, two words: pizza, ice cream. Fine. The Spanish play with their steak before eating it, all good. Frankly any European nation is a far better choice for global uberlord than the bloody Yanks (love them though I do. Justin Bieber...no, just no. And I don't care if he's Canadian, Canada is just full of Yanks with better healthcare and less murders. You can't fool me, I've been there).

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,05:22

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 07 2010,04:40)
Aw, that's awfully nice.  A cry for attention wrapped in fake concern for our happiness.  We miss you too, FTK (probably not for the same reasons).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I miss FTK. But mostly because I'm a crap shot.

Louis

P.S. FTK, please give me another opportunity to use the Motley Crue song "Don't go away mad". We want flouncing dammit. You're famous for it. Dance fundy monkey, DANCE! Don't make me mock you some more.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 07 2010,05:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(or maybe -tongue would be more accurate)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*shudders at the thought of FTK in tongue*
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 07 2010,05:29

Crossposted:

 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,16:30)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,14:12)
News flash, I want to know *how* and *why* common descent supposedly proved to be better in terms of explaining differences & similarities, as well as in making predictions that have been verified by experiment.  I want to know *everything*, and by God, I'll keep asking questions until they're answered to my satisfaction.  I *sure* hope that your students question you further when you give pat answers like that that say absolutely nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common descent appears to explain why every living thing ever is in a nested hierarchy.
< monophyletic taxon — a grouping that includes all descendants, living and/or extinct, known and unknown, of an inferred common ancestor. >

Here's a great link that explains really everything you might need to know right now

< What is evolution and how does it work? >
And look, they even "admit" it's not perfect
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several "vertebrate twigs."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However I think FTK you would be most intested in this section entitled
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has the explosion of phylogenetic research confirmed or overturned our ideas on relationships? The answer is: both!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tree of Life - Surprises >
Especially this
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Phylogenetic studies are also uncovering totally unexpected relationships. This is especially true for microorganisms, where little visible structural evidence is available. Here, DNA sequences are providing data that are fundamentally changing our understanding of relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As it appears to me that your question is answered there - if it seems to you that common descent can make sense of all this then can common design also make sense of the data?

On that same page they observe
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have also discovered that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants, and that within the animals the segmented worms (annelids) are more closely related to the unsegmented molluscs (snails, clams and squids) than they are to segmented arthropods (spiders, lobsters, millipedes and insects).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does common design predict that fungi are more closely related to animals then to plants?

Can common design explain the patterns shown at the links above and the image below?

A more mathematical approach is shown here
< http://plus.maths.org/issue46/features/phylogenetics/index.html >
where they conclude
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Phylogenetics pushes the boundaries of known mathematics and more problems are sure to follow. Scientists are starting to think that Darwin's binary rooted tree may not be the best picture to have in mind. Certain species can hybridise and some bacteria can transfer genes directly from individual to individual. It may therefore be better to use more general graph theoretical objects, networks, rather than trees. Even if you do accept that evolution progresses in a largely tree-like fashion this is a useful approach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to me that given all the ways of visualising the data (and yet more data is being produced every day) then "common design" would stick out like a sore thumb - it would not follow the pattern so far observed. It would be obvious that something was different.

This tree contains 3,000 species representing the lineages of some 30,000 flowering plants
< >
< http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/treeoflife/challenge.html >
FTK, would it look like that if common design was true? What would be different? If common design was true why would everything appear to branch? Would it not just be like  straight spokes on a wheel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I PM'd the link to the post above to FTK back in 2007 and it said
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you.  That post was very informative.  I'm enjoying reading the links at the moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now that you've had 3+ years to digest the material, I ask you again.

FTK, would it look like that if common design was true? What would be different? If common design was true why would everything appear to branch? Would it not just be like  straight spokes on a wheel?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,06:50

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,05:19)
Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cripes, Louis, it has been 65 years. Are those grapes *still* sour?  

Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 07 2010,07:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,12:50)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,05:19)
Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cripes, Louis, it has been 65 years. Are those grapes *still* sour?  

Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.


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


Bwahaha!!! Rugby with paddings so the precious little ones won't hurt themselves!

Sweet...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,07:13

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,07:07)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,12:50)

Cripes, Louis, it has been 65 years. Are those grapes *still* sour?  

Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.


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


Bwahaha!!! Rugby with paddings so the precious little ones won't hurt themselves!

Sweet...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, dude, those guys stand 6' 8" (2.03 meters), are 300 lbs (136 kg) of solid muscle, and can run 40 yards (36.6 meters) in 4.4 seconds (4.4 seconds).  Just one of those guys could flatten an entire rugby scrum.  I shudder to think what they could do to your effete French ass.   :angry:
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 07 2010,07:15

So, FTK, where'd you go? My theories:

1) Your husband threatened divorce unless you stopped flogging the intertubes 23 hours a day, seven days a week.

2) Several months passed. You noticed you were divorced. Your oldest son turned 39; last you looked he was eight. The power went out. Your laptop batteries died. The discussion seemed to lag.

3) The fox got the goslings again. [ETA: Or was it the goose got the ducklings? Nature red in tooth and beak.]

4) In despair you hooked up with Lenny Flank some time after Louis ran him off. (sniff) (boo-hoo).

5) All of the above, in that order.

OK, nevermind. Why are you back?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,07:20

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 07 2010,07:15)
Why are you back?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is Rich's fault.  He uttered the inutterable:

< Beetlejuice!   Beetlejuice!   Beetlejuice! >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 07 2010,07:21

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,13:13)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,07:07)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,12:50)

Cripes, Louis, it has been 65 years. Are those grapes *still* sour?  

Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.


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


Bwahaha!!! Rugby with paddings so the precious little ones won't hurt themselves!

Sweet...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, dude, those guys stand 6' 8" (2.03 meters), are 300 lbs (136 kg) of solid muscle, and can run 40 yards (36.6 meters) in 4.4 seconds (4.4 seconds).  Just one of those guys could flatten an entire rugby scrum.  I shudder to think what they could do to you effete French ass.   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Horse-boy! I've jumped off a perfectly functioning airplane more than 1400 times, and survived.

Let's see your "footballers" do the same!

BTW, "football" is played with feet!


ps: maybe we should take this to the bathroom wall. Wouldn't want to spoil FTK's "special place"...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,07:23

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,07:21)
Ok Horse-boy! I've jumped off a perfectly functioning airplane more than 1400 times, and survived.

Let's see your "footballers" do the same!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pffft!  Even our 85 year old ex-Presidents jump out of planes.


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 07 2010,07:25

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,13:23)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,07:21)
Ok Horse-boy! I've jumped off a perfectly functioning airplane more than 1400 times, and survived.

Let's see your "footballers" do the same!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pffft!  Even our 85 year old ex-Presidents jump out of planes.


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


Yep, with the Black Knights, IIRC.

At least, that's one thing he did well...
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,07:28

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,13:13)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,07:07)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,12:50)

Cripes, Louis, it has been 65 years. Are those grapes *still* sour?  

Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.


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


Bwahaha!!! Rugby with paddings so the precious little ones won't hurt themselves!

Sweet...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, dude, those guys stand 6' 8" (2.03 meters), are 300 lbs (136 kg) of solid muscle, and can run 40 yards (36.6 meters) in 4.4 seconds (4.4 seconds).  Just one of those guys could flatten an entire rugby scrum.  I shudder to think what they could do to your effete French ass.   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sebastien Chabal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And he's not even English!

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 07 2010,07:36

So I look into it.

"As soon as at least two players, one from each side, are in physical contact together with the ball on the ground, a ruck has formed. This physical contact, or binding, is generally by locking shoulders while facing each other. Additional players may join the ruck, but must do so from behind the rearmost foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck; this is often referred to as "coming through the gate".

Stop right there. I've heard quite enough.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 07 2010,07:40

Louis; go get'em!
Posted by: dnmlthr on Aug. 07 2010,08:28

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,12:50)
Besides *our* Vikings are much more fearsome (and not extinct) than the Yurpean version.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I rest my case.

Except for the extinct part of course!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,08:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 07 2010,07:36)
So I look into it.

"As soon as at least two players, one from each side, are in physical contact together with the ball on the ground, a ruck has formed. This physical contact, or binding, is generally by locking shoulders while facing each other. Additional players may join the ruck, but must do so from behind the rearmost foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck; this is often referred to as "coming through the gate".

Stop right there. I've heard quite enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus-tapdancing-Christ, are those rules for rugby or the script for a gay porn movie?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,08:55

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,07:28)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sebastien Chabal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And he's not even English!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sebastien Chabal?



Meh. We had him first when his name was Lou Ferrigno.


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 07 2010,09:01

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,09:49)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 07 2010,07:36)
So I look into it.

"As soon as at least two players, one from each side, are in physical contact together with the ball on the ground, a ruck has formed. This physical contact, or binding, is generally by locking shoulders while facing each other. Additional players may join the ruck, but must do so from behind the rearmost foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck; this is often referred to as "coming through the gate".

Stop right there. I've heard quite enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus-tapdancing-Christ, are those rules for rugby or the script for a gay porn movie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, it's Rugby:


Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 07 2010,10:41

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,05:19)
At least when the British were the world's most important colonial superpower there was tea....and occasional genocide but it's impolite to mention that. Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides coffee we also gave the world soft drinks (come for the high fructose corn syrup, stay for the ethylene glycol) and fast food...and occasional morbid obesity but it's impolite to mention that.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 07 2010,11:35

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 07 2010,10:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,05:19)
At least when the British were the world's most important colonial superpower there was tea....and occasional genocide but it's impolite to mention that. Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides coffee we also gave the world soft drinks (come for the high fructose corn syrup, stay for the ethylene glycol) and fast food...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and freedom.  :angry:


Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,14:03

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 07 2010,13:36)
So I look into it.

"As soon as at least two players, one from each side, are in physical contact together with the ball on the ground, a ruck has formed. This physical contact, or binding, is generally by locking shoulders while facing each other. Additional players may join the ruck, but must do so from behind the rearmost foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck; this is often referred to as "coming through the gate".

Stop right there. I've heard quite enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's nothing wrong with a bit of friendly homosexuality in rugby. It makes it more dangerous. I mean, you're afraid of physical damage, looking like a tit in public if you play badly, letting your team mates down AND buggery.

And our gay players look like this:



Ahhh Alfie. Good on him. I love that bloke (purely at a distance and in an entirely sexless way I assure you...possibly too rapidly), bloody good rugby player, gent off the pitch and dedicated athlete. A good lad. (BTW his name is Gareth Thomas but he's known as Alfie)

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We don't fuck about. Which is to say, of course, we do.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,14:12

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2010,17:35)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 07 2010,10:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2010,05:19)
At least when the British were the world's most important colonial superpower there was tea....and occasional genocide but it's impolite to mention that. Bloody Yanks can't make tea. Not a proper superpower with coffee and crap tea, sorry. It's the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides coffee we also gave the world soft drinks (come for the high fructose corn syrup, stay for the ethylene glycol) and fast food...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and freedom.  :angry:


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


Listen ex Colonial Septic Tanks, you know I love you, we all know I am very fond of all things American. When I lived there I found the people pleasant and welcoming, if occasionally drunk and slightly afraid, but that might be my fault. I tend to encourage drunkenness and fear of being ruinated by drunkenness in others (when not on disappointingly well behaved health kicks like I am at the moment. It's pathetic, a grown man drinking water, fucking shameful).

However the rule stands, no proper tea no superpower. China and India agree and they are up and coming. Hell one of them owns all of us. Look at what happened to Russia, they might drink the stuff but it's bloody awful.

Luckily tea can be improved. I suggested starting out easily with a Ceylon or a Dargeeling. Do not go direct to Lapsang Souchon. It could cause unrest and civil disobedience.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 07 2010,15:13

I want to hear more about "Louis Living In America".

The number of years, area(s) lived in, # and type ofarrests, morals charges, the whole bag of tea.

Don't make us all wait for the movie dude!

BTW - I type this from local library - waiting for IT genius Monday to fix home pc - it is currently broke worse than a KS Fundy. (Hey, this IS after all an FTK Thread:)
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2010,15:25

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 07 2010,21:13)
I want to hear more about "Louis Living In America".

The number of years, area(s) lived in, # and type ofarrests, morals charges, the whole bag of tea.

Don't make us all wait for the movie dude!

BTW - I type this from local library - waiting for IT genius Monday to fix home pc - it is currently broke worse than a KS Fundy. (Hey, this IS after all an FTK Thread:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The names have been changed to protect the guilty. The very, very guilty!

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 07 2010,23:50

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 07 2010,07:15)
So, FTK, where'd you go? My theories:

1) Your husband threatened divorce unless you stopped flogging the intertubes 23 hours a day, seven days a week.

2) Several months passed. You noticed you were divorced. Your oldest son turned 39; last you looked he was eight. The power went out. Your laptop batteries died. The discussion seemed to lag.

3) The fox got the goslings again. [ETA: Or was it the goose got the ducklings? Nature red in tooth and beak.]

4) In despair you hooked up with Lenny Flank some time after Louis ran him off. (sniff) (boo-hoo).

5) All of the above, in that order.

OK, nevermind. Why are you back?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to worry, Bill.  Hubby still luvs me...the kids are doing great....no ducklings or goslings to protect this spring, so we didn’t have to chase off any foxes or herons.  A hookup w/Lenny?  <shudders>

Where did I go?  Well, nothing too interesting really.....just a culmination of several things.  I was pissed as hell because I lost all my comments from my blog when I changed to cocomments.  I had switched to see it would be easier to mute stalker clown boy with that application. But, in the process of changing over you lose all your old comments, though they are saved to your computer if you ever decided to switch back to blogger comments.  I decided I didn’t care for cocomments, but before I made the switch back my freaking laptop died along with all my old comments.....was livid.  All those comments were really important to me because I referred back to them all the time.  

I was without a laptop for a while, and when I finally got a new one, my heart just wasn’t in the debate anymore.  I’d put in 5 years...had heard all the arguments and the bullshit, and basically there was nothing left to cover anymore.  It all boiled down to wash, rinse, repeat.  I figured it was a good time to move on.  

Although it’s a certainty that Darwinism as we know it will bite the dust, there will always be some materialistic explanation put forth for origins just as there will always be an argument for design in one form or the other.  I guess I just eventually found the whole debate senseless in a way.  And, my Dad became ill, which meant several trips to Mayo, and he was much more important to me than this ridiculous debate.  I still like to read up on what’s going on from time to time, but I just lost the intense passion I had for the subject.

Why am I back?  Well, Rich rang, and I answered...lol.  Seriously, though, I just popped in to say hi.

Yo, Louis......take ur best shot, cuz I’m not staying long.  I don’t think you’ll be getting a flounce out of me though...lol.  


Posted by: Louis on Aug. 08 2010,04:45

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 08 2010,05:50)
[SNIP]

Yo, Louis......take ur best shot, cuz I’m not staying long.  I don’t think you’ll be getting a flounce out of me though...lol.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Best shot? Whyever would I waste that sort of effort? You're doing all the work by yourself you ridiculous fundy you.

You'll flounce, you always flounce.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 08 2010,04:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, my Dad became ill
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really sorry to hear this. I hope he'll be better soon...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cuz I’m not staying long
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really not sorry to hear that. I hope you'll go away soon...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 08 2010,04:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there will always be some materialistic explanation put forth for origins just as there will always be an argument for design in one form or the other.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly. There will always be a materialistic explanation and design will always be a mere argument based on nothing in particular.

Glad you've come round to seeing it my way.

Should design turn into an actual explanation be sure to wake me the fuck up then.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 08 2010,04:51

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 07 2010,23:50)
I had switched to see it would be easier to mute stalker clown boy with that application.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EDIT: The fundie mindset encapsulated in a single sentence.

Don't address your critics, find a way to muzzle them.

Don't address the issues, claim that it's just two sides of the same argument.

Dehumanize your opponents with slurs "stalker clown boy" even if that is kinda against the religion you profess to be a member of "judge not...".

Ignore factual arguments like they were never made.

Claim that the evidence, whatever it is, supports your argument and where it does not you can call it a "fact" in scare quotes as if that changes anything.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing where in the information you've provided anything that refutes my claim that we saw a huge advancement including the written word and massive amounts of architecture starting at around 7,000bc.  

You can rest peacefully knowing that your wiki links provide you with information to support the "fact" that humans have been talking and socializing for 100,000 years, I'm just saying that the evidence points to a massive explosion of human development at 7,000bc.  

Why so hateful towards me?  I'm not lying about anything, I'm just providing my understanding and viewpoint on these topics.  I'm not a teacher, so you can relax as I won't have any influence on poor innocent kids who ask questions that evolutionists can't answer.

Oh, btw, I'm not a buddy "boy".  I'm a *girl*.  You can refer to me as buddy *girl* if you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A a massive explosion of human development at 7,000bc somehow indicates "design"? Somehow proves that your god actually exists?

Yeah, whatever. Ever thought about why that might have been the case? Or why your god chose to wait hundreds of thousands of years before doing whatever it was you think it did in 7,000bc? I guess that level of joined up thinking is not something you practised 3 years ago and it's clearly not something you practice now.

EDIT EDIT: Was this "explosion" before or after the fludde FTK? Pah.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 08 2010,09:11

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 08 2010,00:50)
Although it’s a certainty that Darwinism as we know it will bite the dust, there will always be some materialistic explanation put forth for origins just as there will always be an argument for design in one form or the other.  I guess I just eventually found the whole debate senseless in a way.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That part is always so cute!  Pray harder, wingnut; it ain't happening.
Posted by: khan on Aug. 08 2010,09:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, my Dad became ill, which meant several trips to Mayo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why?

Can't you just pray and so avoid the evil scientists?
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 08 2010,10:30

FTK:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d put in 5 years...had heard all the arguments and the bullshit, and basically there was nothing left to cover anymore.  It all boiled down to wash, rinse, repeat.  I figured it was a good time to move on.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've never really figured out how people like this can be functional members of society.  Can they really not see that the washing, rinsing, and repeating is done completely on one side?

FTK, as the world marches on and actual scientists, explorers, and even the merely curious discover things the arguments always change.  Always.

Real work is done when new data comes in: bones, geologic data, DNA sequencing, etc.  The arguments are always new.

It's the response from creationists that is always the same.  There are no new ideas, just the same reactions to an ever-changing set of data.  It would look better if you changed the arguments to fit your "new problems" as they came up.

You haven't learned a thing.  You haven't even tried and that's the sad part--you never even wanted to try.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 08 2010,10:31

Quote (Wolfhound @ Aug. 08 2010,09:11)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 08 2010,00:50)
Although it’s a certainty that Darwinism as we know it will bite the dust, there will always be some materialistic explanation put forth for origins just as there will always be an argument for design in one form or the other.  I guess I just eventually found the whole debate senseless in a way.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That part is always so cute!  Pray harder, wingnut; it ain't happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, actually, since it is science we are talking about, that's not much of a prediction at all. "Darwinism" as Darwin knew it is history; we know a lot more about it than Darwin did. All scientific theories change over time; some are (gasp) even overturned! This helps us distinguish them from idiot notions like creationism.

But I doubt that FtK is savvy enough to have figured this out. She probably still buys the Dembskian notion that "Darwinism" will be dead in ten years or whatever. Interesting that she didn't bother to add a time frame to her "prediction".
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 08 2010,11:20

Quote (khan @ Aug. 08 2010,15:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, my Dad became ill, which meant several trips to Mayo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why?

Can't you just pray and so avoid the evil scientists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, I always find ketchup more efficient...


Sorry.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 08 2010,12:07

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 08 2010,08:31)
"Darwinism" will be dead in ten years or whatever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. So Darwinism will collapse around the same time we get mass-produced fusion reactors, then?

edit: undelete alby's bit.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 08 2010,12:09

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 08 2010,09:20)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 08 2010,15:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, my Dad became ill, which meant several trips to Mayo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why?

Can't you just pray and so avoid the evil scientists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, I always find ketchup more efficient...


Sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You relish these punning opportunities, don't you, S-Dog.  I'm so glad you mustard the courage to post.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 08 2010,13:44

Yeah, but if I spice it up, I might find myself in a bit of a pickle...
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 09 2010,03:11

Hmm this pun streak is piquant. I'm worried it could get unsavoury. Or even saucy.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 09 2010,06:09

I wholefully agree. We should all take it with a bit of salt. It's getting kinda chili...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 09 2010,06:29

No better thread than this one to post a link to a column in today's WaPo - < The evolution of a Christian creationist >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A child of the culture wars, I knew what abortion was before I knew where babies came from. I grew up scribbling words like "debatable" and "unlikely" in the margins of biology textbooks, fearlessly defending a 6,000-year-old-earth against atheists I only knew in my imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bad news for the Religious Right is that young evangelicals are tired of the culture wars. The good news for everyone else is that we're ready to make peace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe there's still hope for the kids.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 09 2010,08:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2010,07:29)
Maybe there's still hope,  For the Kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm afeared she's pretty well hopeless...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 10 2010,00:25

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 07 2010,23:50)
...
Although it’s a certainty that Darwinism as we know it will bite the dust, there will always be some materialistic explanation put forth for origins just as there will always be an argument for design in one form or the other.  I guess I just eventually found the whole debate senseless in a way...  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Over 150 years with the evidence constantly growing and you predict its death. Just what is the evidence against evolution FTK? I agree that the debate is senseless, probably for different reasons though.

Sorry to hear about your Dad btw.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 10 2010,04:34

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 09 2010,12:09)
I wholefully agree. We should all take it with a bit of salt. It's getting kinda chili...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the chill in the air could be from our disapproval at the IDCists attempt to condimental.

I'll get my coat. That's not even a proper word.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 10 2010,06:45

FTK:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d put in 5 years...had heard all the arguments and the bullshit, and basically there was nothing left to cover anymore.  It all boiled down to wash, rinse, repeat.  I figured it was a good time to move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like personal growth to me.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 10 2010,07:18

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 10 2010,12:45)
FTK:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d put in 5 years...had heard all the arguments and the bullshit, and basically there was nothing left to cover anymore.  It all boiled down to wash, rinse, repeat.  I figured it was a good time to move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like personal growth to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you are defining personal growth as "not learning a single thing, maintaining one's original nonsensical position in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence (however presented) and simply reasserting that position, in as whiny and persecution complex ridden manner as possible, ad nauseum".

In that case, I'd agree with you.

If you mean "learning that (internet) arguments are generally a waste of time unless you actually engage with them", I'm sorry, I can train a liver fluke to learn that....granted it's taken me a few years, but I've never claimed to be smarter than a liver fluke.

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 10 2010,18:15

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2010,02:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 09 2010,12:09)
I wholefully agree. We should all take it with a bit of salt. It's getting kinda chili...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the chill in the air could be from our disapproval at the IDCists attempt to condimental.

I'll get my coat. That's not even a proper word.

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


Pungent. It's pungent.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 06 2013,19:25

Bonus!

< http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?....ults=50 >
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 03 2017,11:40

I suggest < Cat Pictures Please > by Naomi Kritzer.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.