Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... >

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2006,09:37    The only thing I don't like about the recent post is that if they were all like that, it wouldn't be as fun to read.

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2006,09:57    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 24 2006,10:24) Perfect example of that. GilDodgy says Quote “The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.” Afarensis posts this first part of a response: http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....re And then GilDodgy post this, thinking he's actually won: Quote March 23, 2006 My 15 Minutes of Infamy in the Evolutionary Anthropology Community As the result of a somewhat insensitive and politically incorrect comment I made about evolutionary anthropology here, I have been immortalized for a few minutes at scienceblogs.com. My comment was as follows: “The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.” Apparently this comment struck a nerve, because the author of the article (linked below) launches into a brilliant explanation about how studying tooth enamel reveals so much about human evolution. He makes my point much more effectively than I. I’ll leave it to UD readers to be the judge. http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....re Filed under: Intelligent Design — GilDodgen @ 9:19 pm Complete with overblown self-importance ("My infamy...") It's like watching Martin Brazeau pummel Ghost of Paley. Ghost pisses you off so you like seeing him get his a55 kicked, but it's so brutal you kind of cringe. You can just see Homer making some idiotic yet confident remark, a scientist explaining to him at length why he's wrong, and then homer saying, "Whatever all that meant, I'm still right." I've noticed that GilDodgen, along with the rest of the lot at UD, revel in making themselves feel part of 'the contraversy'.  Having a major scientific blog dismantle their argument/s just doesn't register when they can brag to their compatriots about battling it out with the other side. In some ways, it's a no-win situation for us.  They make an argument.  If we respond, then they shout as loud as they can about 'the contraversy', if we don't respond, then they proclaim that their arguments have gone unanswered.

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2006,10:18    Uh Oh, the Grand Darwinian Conspiracy™ is slipping up!! http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/947 They let this paper through that basically says that all evolution research is bogus. I can't believe the Grand Priests of the High Church of Darwin let this even see the light of day. Now the whole empire of deceit will come crumbling down and a new age of design detection and inference will begin, culminating in science's ultimate defeat by Christ Almighty. IOW, if there were some grand conspiracy to silence all science that contradicts anything about the theory of evolution, then this paper surely would not be published. Will the ID people slowly come to realize this? Nah, consistency isn't one of their tactics since it doesn't really seem to be necessary. -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2006,10:35    It's an all-win situation for us. They can say whatever they want, they can hurl every insult, level every charge of conspiracy, censorship, atheism, ID will never be real science.  No amount of hysterical christianity can change that. Whether they ever have any political or legal victories, ID will never ever be science.

Stranger than fiction Posts: 22 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2006,12:53    Quote No need to threaten Judge Jones III. Just send him a copy of each DVD- “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and “The Privileged Planet”, along with a copy of “Traipsing Into Evolution”. Ask him to watch the videos and take the 3 hour ID challenge. That, along with the book, should be more than enough to show him the “error(s) of his ways”. That 3 hour challenge must be pretty awesome if it can overturn weeks of expert testimony.  Too bad nobody thought to include it in the defense exhibits.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:01    Seems like yesterday Davetard was blaming the church burnings in Alabama on Panda's Thumb. Now we find out Judge Jones has recieved death threats. Will Davetard accept responsibility. Like he said, words have consequences.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:16    Quote It's an all-win situation for us. They can say whatever they want, they can hurl every insult, level every charge of conspiracy, censorship, atheism, ID will never be real science.  No amount of hysterical christianity can change that. Whether they ever have any political or legal victories, ID will never ever be science. Truth is, let's say the IDiots win the battle in the US and gets to teach it in public schools (let's just assume). The rest of the world will still not accept ID as science. It appears as if xtianity is loosing ground all over the world (except US). Together with this, creationism as a whole is loosing ground. I think the internet plays a major role in this. Before, people were isolated to ideas within their own community but the internet has changed all that. I remember when, as a fundie, I discovered the talkorigins.org site. It changed my whole take on things.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:34    Anyone able to spot the link between A and B. (A) (B) Quote I think the internet plays a major role in this. Before, people were isolated to ideas within their own community but the internet has changed all that. I remember when, as a fundie, I discovered the talkorigins.org site. It changed my whole take on things. I'm sure you are right, which is why the creationist leaders want to gain control of schools and the political system. The internet, with its ability to disseminate information anarchically is a big obstacle for them and long may it remain so. (anarchically went through my spell-check so it must be OK)

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:40    Is the evolution of "threats" to "death threats" repeated here an accident common to such message boards, or has Jones added to his earlier comments?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:43    Quote Anyone able to spot the link between A and B. I can spot the difference. Compared to A, B is a sexy man. With a better haircut.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,04:53    Good for you, Renier, if you used to be a fundie and were able to change your mind. Fundiness is so hard to break I don't even try to persuade them. I consider religion a family of insanities which are mostly benign, but occasionally malevolent and lead to suicide bombing etc.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,05:35    Sanctum From the Centre Daily report: Quote The tone was threatening enough so that U.S. Marshals kept watch over Jones and his family in the week before Christmas, he said. He declined to comment further about the content or source of the threats. Jones said he spoke out after hearing about threats against other judges, including an Internet death threat against Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The reason I chose to talk about it now is that attacks on judges have really gone beyond the pale," Jones said. He noted that conservative pundit Ann Coulter was quoted as commenting, concerning Justice John Paul Stevens' votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, that "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." "We're going to get a judge hurt," Jones said. It would appear the nature of the threats have been withheld, but that a police guard was thought necessary does imply that they were serious.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,05:53    Quote Good for you, Renier, if you used to be a fundie and were able to change your mind. Fundiness is so hard to break I don't even try to persuade them. I consider religion a family of insanities which are mostly benign, but occasionally malevolent and lead to suicide bombing etc. I share your views. I went from fundie xtian to liberal xtain to agnostic to atheist (in 6 sec flat - just had to say that) - in about a year.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,06:06    We all remember Davetard blaming the Alabama church burnings on Panda's Thumb. Will he blame Uncommonly Dense for threats against Judge Jones? No. I'm aiming for the 2006 World's Dumbest Inconsistency or Self-Contradiction Award.  I'm trying to beat DougMoron's juggernaut entry. -dt

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,06:59    Is that the same Doug who is all for intelectual honesty? Can't be...

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,08:08    From the latest UD post, can anyone even begin to reconcile these two paragraphs: "(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.)" "You can't improve the cell through one random mutation at a time because if you change any one aspect, the whole thing will crash. For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die."

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,08:57    Thanks Alan. I was wondering if that was still the situation, as reported here http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3634734 yesterday, or if there was new information that warranted the upgrade. Quote Mar 24, 2006 —     In the days after U.S. Judge John E. Jones III issued his decision in Dover's intelligent design case, outraged people sent threatening e-mails to his office. Jones won't discuss details of the e-mails, or where they might have come from, but he said they concerned the U.S. Marshals Service. So, in the week before Christmas, marshals kept watch over Jones and his family. While no single e-mail may have reached the level of a direct threat, Jones said, the overall tone was so strident, marshals "simply determined the tenor was of sufficient concern that I ought to have protection." "They decided to err on the side of caution," he said.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,09:02    Stevestory, is there a particular inconsistency in that post which you feel deserves this award or is that the whole post contains so many that it somehow instantly qualifies him for a less specific "lifetime services to inconsistancy and self-contradiction" award? The main ones I would count in that thread are: He asserts that no evidence can prove or disprove that gods exist or would act in a particular way and also that he is more able follow that "real evidence" to whereever it leads. (Contradiction spotted by ctaser, who was subsequently banned for it) (in reply 14) He seems to be saying that he has more freedom to reach a decision based on all of the evidence, precisely because he's already made his mind up and therefore can't be swayed by the evidence (at least thats what I understand by "can't threaten his worldview") (Contradiction spotted by woody, who was subsequently banned and/or disemvowelled for it -- but only having responded to an additional clarification by DS) He says atheists must preclude certain possibilies because they have already decided the "theory" is wrong and then in reply 5 says theres a faction in the atheist camp that is open minded. (my emphasis and quotation marks) He says that atheists, having decided they don't believe n God, are rejecting an infinitite number of potential truths. He's doesn't seem to realise that by accepting on faith that a particular god is the truth, he too is ruling out a infinite number of truths (-1 for his God, but +1 for potential truth of "no God"). However he doesn't mention that he's doing this so maybe it's not in the same class. In an article/thread  about intellectual dishonesty, he is intellectually dishonest. He holds atheists and theists to different standards on grounds of the stance he wrongly assumes each has taken. When a contradiction is pointed out he answers it with a link which he claims explains why there is no contradiction but which turns out to be a syllabus for a logic course with no answer.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,09:56    Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 25 2006,14:08) From the latest UD post, can anyone even begin to reconcile these two paragraphs: "(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only... ... which is not covered by the theory of evolution.   So where is this 'Intelligent Design' if life can evolve through mutations and natural selection? Even ID supporters don't know what their theory is supposed to demonstrate.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,12:03    steve_h, that's it. He says evidence can't go to the question of god, so theists like him can be intellectually free and honest, and then a paragraph later he's forgotten this and says atheists have to ignore evidence of god, hence are dishonest, and then when it's pointed out he refuses to admit it on a thread about how important it is for people to suck it up and be intellectually honest. I mean, GOD####, that is magnificently retarded. I mean, that post is standing at the pinnacle of a mountain, it's cape flapping in a breeze, sunset casting a golden glow across it's chiseled features, gloriously retarded. It is the ne plus ultra of tard. It is to other retarded posts as Michael Jordan was to Craig Ehlo, on a distinct plane above even the world's best.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,12:11    Tiax, good catch. Those two quotes are contradictory. Of course there's no way to tell which describes ID, because there is no theory of ID. ID is something somewhen consciously brought something into being somehow. It is fit only for fools like Paul Nelson and the Uncommonly Dense crowd.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,12:22    I've got a comment about Quote I share your views. I went from fundie xtian to liberal xtain to agnostic to atheist (in 6 sec flat - just had to say that) - in about a year. but I don't want to contribute to derailing here, so I'm posting it up a level.

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,12:38    I think Dembski is starting to lose it.  His last two posts "The ID perspective on viruses?" and "Say it this time with feeling: “Isn’t natural selection amazing!”" make absolutely no sense. The virus one is about a way that plankton use viruses to pass around genetic information.  I have no idea how that's supposed to be related to ID's 'prespective' on viruses, and Dembksi doesn't bother to elaborate. The natural selection one is about a woman who has amazing memory, and WD writes "What is the survival and reproductive value of a perfect memory? Let me guess: the woman “AJ” described in the article below also has an uncanny ability to attract mates and has given birth to numerous offspring — all on account of her prodigious memory!" Huh?  Is Dembski one of those who denies any evolutionary change? (since this would be an intraspecies change, something that Dave would be just peachy with, I would think)  Even so, does the above paragraph even make any sense?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,12:51    I love their use of the word perspective. They use it all the time. If they said "ID Theory says blah blah blah about viruses" their supporters would realize there's no such thing. So they say "the ID perspective on viruses blah blah blah".

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,15:29    UD's newest recruit, Barry Arrington: Quote To me, the most thrilling thing about ID is that it shows us that while Darwinism may be true, it is not necessarily true. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/954#comments What am I missing? Edit: Looks like Barry's struggling to top his inaugural post: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/955#respond

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,16:03    What are you missing? Wrong question. What is Barry missing is the question. And the answer is, "the sense god gave a goose."

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,16:09    Quote This is why I am excited about ID – and honored to be invited to post on this site - because ID gives up hope for freedom. Holmes was tightly bound by the fetters of Darwinism. Tragically, he believed he was compelled to accept Darwin’s ideas and accommodate the law to those ideas. To me, the most thrilling thing about ID is that it shows us that while Darwinism may be true, it is not necessarily true. ID gives us hope that we can look forward to a day in this nation – and indeed the world – when our minds will have been finally wrested from Darwin’s tyrannical grasp. After 150 years of ascendancy, I hear the creaks and groans of an edifice on the verge of toppling, and all of our institutions – not least the law – will be better when it finally does. Filed under: Intelligent Design — BarryA @ 4:29 pm This guy is going to be awesome.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,16:47    Re "because ID gives up hope for freedom. " Wondering who put the typo in that? Henry

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,18:17    Quote # A lot of the statements in that article about “normal memory” are pure speculation. No one knows where memories “are” - no one has ever located one in the brain. But then that’s pretty much par for the course for neuroscience: they see a little electrical activity or blood flow in a few places, and think they have everything figured out. The brain - and it’s relationship to the mind - is if anything more mysterious now than it was 50 years ago. Check out this article: http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm Comment by jimbo — March 25, 2006 @ 9:14 pm I am finishing up my undergraduate degree in neuroscience (soon to be going to graduate school), and this statement made my day. Not only does jimbo display a profound lack of understanding with respect to the history of memory research, but he links to a website that posits a tenuous explanation for memory. It is tempting to write a full reply to his assertion, but it would take something on the order of talkorigins to go over all the evidence. Suffice it to say, if any other posters have specific questions I will do my best to answer them.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,21:55    Quote Hmmm. On another thread, Twist wrote: “Anyway, while digging around the web trying to understand Professor Davison’s semi-meiosis theories, I found this little gem. ‘It is atheism versus theism pure and simple. I belong to the latter camp.’ Someone might want to drop him a note letting him know that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and has no connection to religion.” Sooo…do ID detractors expect ID to conform to the parameters of religion? Or not? I’m confused. Is the problem that ID poses as a religion when it’s actually not? Or that ID disguises itself as not a religion when actually it is? Anyone have any light to shed on this? Comment by Lutepisc — March 25, 2006 @ 9:22 pm Let's wait and see.

Pages: (1000) < ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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