Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Young Cosmos started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on July 31 2007,08:19

I don't know if this deserves its own thread. But we'll see what happens.

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=53 >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 31 2007,09:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 31 2007,09:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73 >

So, it's like ok to go and present some objections :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 31 2007,09:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2007,09:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73 >

So, it's like ok to go and present some objections :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hope he does better than the EF...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 31 2007,09:53

Sal says

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stars were made
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If they were made, they were designed. If they were designed the EF claims to detect that. I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 31 2007,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



anyone want to wager on the form of the response?  i'm dying inside.
Posted by: JohnW on July 31 2007,10:57

I started to look at the main site (< http://www.youngcosmos.com >).  Sadly, I can't get past the second paragraph without falling off my chair:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Advanced Creation Science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whoops!  On the floor again!  This is starting to hurt.  

Let's try it once more.  I'm going to hold on really tight this time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Advanced Creation Science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ow!  Ow!  Ow!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 31 2007,11:08

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 31 2007,10:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



anyone want to wager on the form of the response?  i'm dying inside.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well how about that, somebody asked already....

< Link >

:p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 31 2007,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 31 2007,13:05

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,11:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

Not to mention other liabilities, such as quote-mining.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 31 2007,14:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2007,09:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, SN1987A is 169,000 light years away.

This distance is independent of the speed of light decaying or not!  A counter-intuitive result, but one
you can check for yourself.  

SN1987A formed a ring, and light from the supernova bounced off the ring and arrived at earth 400 days later than the supernova.  To keep the analysis simple, make a right triangle (the ring is not perpendicular but tilted in reality).  

The angle is 1.66 arc seconds or 1.66 / 3600 degrees.  The sine is the diameter of the
ring.  The cosine is the distance to the supernova.  The hypotenuse is the light bouncing off the ring.  The path length difference is 400 days, since the hypotenuse and cosine are very close to the same length.  Now assume that the speed of light was ten times faster for one year.
Both rays of light travel the same distance (10 light years), with the remaining distance to be travelled still 400 light days different, and the light arrives 400 days apart.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 31 2007,14:13

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 31 2007,13:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,11:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I couldn't be happier with Sal as a prominent internet advocate for Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on July 31 2007,14:56

SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 31 2007,17:06

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 31 2007,13:05)
Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well heck, **all** IDers are.  Ain't NONE of them can go ten minutes withoput launching into the "Bible blah blah blah Jesus blah blah blah God blah blah blah" routine. Just read UD for ten minutes.

As I've always said, all you gotta do is just sit back and let them talk long enough, and they shoot *themselves* in the head every single time.  Proudly. They simply cannot shut their big mouths.

They are by far their own worst enemies.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 31 2007,18:02

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,14:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone needs to photoshop photos of Sal and Dr Dr Dembski onto a picture of Arthur and Bedivere.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 31 2007,18:47

FSM help me but I'm a masochist.  I went and hit Sal with the same C14 cal curve consilience question in his C14 thread we've been beating AFDave with (I posted there as 'Tiggy' ).  He's already gone through one iteration of mindless AIG C&P 'evidence' that completely fails to address the question.  Wonder how long before he introduces Jesus into the equation?  He's already brought in DA FLUD.  :p
Posted by: stevestory on July 31 2007,20:29

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,15:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. Rob, you're not a bad guy sometimes.
Posted by: Henry J on July 31 2007,22:38

Re "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

That idea could have a peel...
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 01 2007,00:42

Well, that didn't take long.

Sal has already removed my criticisms from the C14 dating thread and banned me from posting there.

One a craven YEC always a craven YEC I guess.  Dembski and DaveTard woud be proud!

Now let's see how long before I get banned totally.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 01 2007,04:23

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,02:29)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,15:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. Rob, you're not a bad guy sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Steve! Bad Steve. We DON'T say that.

Louis

P.S. I AM joking, I read RO'B's post, laughed, read the poster's name, did a double take, laughed and raised a glass in RO'B's honour.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 01 2007,09:33

If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

< http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html >
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Aug. 01 2007,10:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:04 pm
Dr. Jellison,
I do not want to minimize whatsover that you may be right. I was merely pointing out the possible (even if remote) chance CDK might be able to survive the problem you pointed out. The eclipsing binaries in Andromeda may have an alternative explanation, and the fact that 9% of spectroscopic binaires are eclipsing was suggested as an anomaly (perhaps a disconfirming anomaly) as well. We are afterall only getting pulses out of "eclipsing binaries".

We do not in fact have their orbits in plain sight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read this and heard the distinct sound in my mind of:

"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 01 2007,10:43

Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,09:33)
If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

< http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM - Excellent catch - How and where did you find these nuts?  Did you just google "nut-jobs"?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Maybe we should have a contest some day to find the runner-up dumbest ID blogs (UD of course will always be #1 - in our hearts, if not in the numbers).
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Aug. 01 2007,12:40

Sal is a self-fluffer...                      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sal >: I delight to consider myself [Dr. Cheesman's] partner
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sal >: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal has been talking about Setterfield for over three and a half years, at least:  < Sal @ ARN >  But, how serious is he about following the science with YEC implications?  Just last week, < he admitted >:                    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually until you pointed out the Andromeda and Magellan formations I was not aware of binaries that far away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From his < C14 radiometric dating thread >:                  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 2004 some of my personal research augmented that of Loma Linda/GRI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that is more self-fluffing, or Sal must have been pretty knowledgeable about radiometric dating.  From the ARN post linked above:          

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
faded_Glory:
Salvador,
All you show are 'proofs by contradiction', but surely a young Earth would have many traces left of its short history? One example would be short-lived radioactive isotopes. Where are they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fG, I do respect your opinion here, you are clearly more knowledgeble in these areas.  I present the argument with caution, I could be wrong (and fall back to OEC), but for the sake of defending the YEC thesis, I will try to entertain your objection to the best of my ability.
Can you point me to a link to spool me up on radiometric dating? Your question deserves to be answered. I will do my best to honor your question. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, however, there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable (strange as that may sound).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a fluffer!  The argument he cautiously presents is that "there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable" and to ask for a link where he can read up on radiometric dating.  How telling that his personal research ignorant googling can augment YEC research.  Sal puts the "fun" in fundie.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 01 2007,12:46

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 01 2007,10:43)
 
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,09:33)
If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

< http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM - Excellent catch - How and where did you find these nuts?  Did you just google "nut-jobs"?

Inquiring minds want to know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found it because Bradford of TT linked to it on his own blog. This guy is hysterically funny, yet articulate--check out his justification for using the term "female drones."

It's a special brand of tard.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 01 2007,14:12

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sal >: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


From the < Crackpot Index. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 01 2007,16:27

Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 01 2007,16:42

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 01 2007,16:27)
Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.apostolic.edu/biblestudy/files/9th-com.htm >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 02 2007,02:01

Sal explains why he's pro ID:

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=43 >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I started getting interested in ID in 2001 when my father was terminally ill and I was searching for meaning in life. There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith. It bothered my conscience that if the Bible were false, I was merely encouraging them toward their doom. One of the missionaries was Heather Mercer who became world famous in 2001 when US Army rangers rescued her from the Taliban. Thus, I had to be assured that ID was probably true so I could sleep at night, for their sake. If ID were false, the moral thing to do would be to discourage them from being missionaries.

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



This sums up Sal. He re-imagines reality to compensate for his immorality.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 02 2007,09:30

That's textbook bad reasoning.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 02 2007,09:40

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,09:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, as Sal would say "Even Darwinists agree my reasoning on the subject belongs in textbooks."
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 02 2007,09:47

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,17:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 02 2007,10:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are these:

A)  Missionaries who don't exist yet
B)  Missionaries extolling various prophecies
C)  Missionaries that people are buying as commodities
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 02 2007,10:48

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 01 2007,16:27)
Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
Some of Sal's posts make my teeth itch.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 02 2007,10:50

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 02 2007,10:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are these:

A)  Missionaries who don't exist yet
B)  Missionaries extolling various prophecies
C)  Missionaries that people are buying as commodities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


blipey - Looks like you've really nailed Sal on his "missionary position"... :)
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Aug. 02 2007,11:36

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 02 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,17:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well,  The world IS old, the bible IS false, and god DON'T exist, so this is all valid reasoning.  :D
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 02 2007,17:23

the tard harvest is coming in early this year people!

Talking about how to moderate a forum, Sal says:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot pioneered the model, I'm just improving upon it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Sal (last post) >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 02 2007,19:56

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that sal might be the biggest fool of all those fools.

As a wise friend once said, "You could pick that [fool] out from all the [fools]".  (that isn't exactly what he was talking about but it works).

Davetard pioneered the model ROFLMAO
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 02 2007,21:38

Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 02 2007,21:39

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you provide some examples or links?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 02 2007,21:57

Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 02 2007,21:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you provide some examples or links?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tiggy

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 33


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:52 pm  
:
Salvador did an outstanding job.

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure  :angry:
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 02 2007,22:02

C'mon, folks, please remember that before hitting "Submit" for a comment at one of those antievolution advocate-run fora, "Select all" and "Copy" your work. Then bring it here and enter it in the appropriate thread. If you want to really give the admins at those other sites hissy fits, do what I used to do when posting to ISCID, and enter the comment here *first*, then drop in the link to the unedited original in the comment posted there. That way, if they remove the link that shows that they have no tolerance for open discussion, and if they leave it but muck about with your words, it will become obvious what they are up to.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 02 2007,22:07

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 02 2007,21:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you provide some examples or links?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tiggy

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 33


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:52 pm  
:
Salvador did an outstanding job.

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is very, very lame. :angry:
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 02 2007,22:31

Awwwwwww, I wanted to continue my conversation from AtBC from a while ago (the one he ran away from).

But for some odd reason, Sal (1) deleted all my questions and (2) closed out my login account.


I'm shocked.


Shocked, I say.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 02 2007,22:33

Hey Sal .....JESUS MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE.
Salvadore Cordova is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse kicking contest.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 02 2007,23:46

To finish my story, Sal the Shithead just deleted all my posts and deleted my account

I'd much rather have that than have the asshole posting stuff in my name.

Gawd, I feel dirty after having to deal with that scumbag.  I'm gonna go take a nice hot shower and try to scrub off the stink.
Posted by: djmullen on Aug. 02 2007,23:57

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 01 2007,14:12)
 
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sal >: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


From the < Crackpot Index. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


40 points for including a known crank (Setterfield) in the name.  Possibly 60 points, depending on who Cheesman is.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,00:47

My < contribution to the Young Cosmos rhetoric forum >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rhetoric is civic discourse. It depends on the willingness to engage the other. Given the passionate commitment of participants in the YEC debate, it's not surprising that passions get engaged.

In this regard, notions of "politeness" can morph very easily, and have already on these forums, into practices of policing that always end up protecting the owners of the forum. The Young Comos "discussion" forums are quickly morphing into a set of manifestly unfair forums -- among the least fair I've ever seen -- where "civility" is used like a cudgel and rhetorically suspect practices (such as changing the words of a poster) are not treated as gross violations of decent practice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,00:55

Just saw Behe on The Colbert Report. Behe looked kind of like a street preacher.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 03 2007,02:58

Sal is reduced to doing a AFDave and making up "< data >"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, C-14 is flawed beyond 1000 years.......Sal generates some random numbers, plots them on a graph and disproved C-14 Dating. Nice.

On a different thread Sal quotes John Stuart Mill


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

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed Sal, indeed....
< Link >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 03 2007,06:54

Sal is, of course, a dishonest coward.

Always has been.

Always will be.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,08:21

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,06:54)
Sal is, of course, a dishonest coward.

Always has been.

Always will be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see how long I last < over  there >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The moderators seem to have taken Tiggy's posts and moved them silently to a location called "the recycle bin." These posts are apparently called "uncivil" because they say that Sal doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to C14 and that Sal's "refutation" of C14 by means of random numbers is "stupid."  Apparently such comments are deemed too much for the delicate sensibilities of the moderators.  So:

Forums then:


Forums now:

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 03 2007,08:21

I just hope this douchebag gets involved in the next court case.  

Sal, we love you babe, honest.  Just not for the reasons that you would want to be loved. (Jesus is spinning in his grave ROFLMAO)
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,08:32

My latest at Sal's fiefdom, while I still can:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SC sez:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After ignoring my querry [sic] to do a simply calculation, I do the calculations.

Tiggy then offers his unuseful opinion after I make the calculations. Tiggy's posts on my C-14 thera [sic] are subject to the follwoing [sic] rule: If I find them uninformative, they'll end up in the recycle bin.

He can reciprocate on any thread he starts and treat me the same way. He is a co-moderator in that respect. Although, I have no intention of making too many appearances on his threads if any at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Offering the opponent a chance at reciprocal moderation abuse is hardly symmetrical behavior. especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 03 2007,09:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2007,02:58)
Sal is reduced to doing a AFDave and making up "< data >"

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, C-14 is flawed beyond 1000 years.......Sal generates some random numbers, plots them on a graph and disproved C-14 Dating. Nice.

On a different thread Sal quotes John Stuart Mill
     

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

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed Sal, indeed....
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's even funnier than that!

The colored points on the graph are actual empirical data from peer-reviewed studies.  They show that the racemization constant for the amino acid decay in NOT constant but decreases with time.  

The equation Sal uses to generate his red line is an approximation that was derived from that empirical data.

OF COURSE if you plug any numbers into it you're going to get the same sloping line SAL YOU FUCKING MORON

The green line that Sal says is the "good" data is what you get if you assume the racemization constant IS actually constant over time.  Problem is, both YEC authors that Sal is drawing from acknowledge that is NOT the case

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
M Brown: Let's look at the graph below. If Amino Acid dating was a predictable process, like other dating techniques with a predictable rate, the points on the chart would align themselves in a horizontal line. That would indicate that the Racemization constant really is a constant. It would mean that this method would be able to predict an age by itself. It would indicated that the rate would be the same rate for all the samples collected.

This is definitely not the case. Looking at the graph we can see that the Racemization constant changes almost as much as the predicted date!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RH Brown: The most impressive immediate impact of these plots is that for a particular amino acid there is no characteristic racemization rate constant that can be used to estimate the age of every fossil containing that amino acid. If each amino acid could be described by a characteristic racemization rate constant as a component of fossil protein, the data points in figures (3) and (4) would cluster about a horizontal line. The demonstrated clustering about a line which slopes downward indicates that the apparent racemization rate constant is actually not a constant, but is related to fossil age, diminishing as age increases. This observation has been made frequently in the literature (e.g., Lajoie et al. 1980, Bada and Schroeder 1972, King and Hare 1972, Wehmiller and Hare 1971, Hare and Mitterer 1966).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So not only does Sal not understand C14 dating, he doesn't even understand the YEC articles he is arguing!   :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 03 2007,09:44

Oops!  Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunk: Hi,
If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who
speaks falsely will stand in my presence."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.   :p
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,09:54

Young Cosmos is just another version of ISCID Brainstorms, a low-traffic site which attracts only the occasional crackpot like John Davison.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,10:05

speaking of ISCID, it doesn't make sense that PCID is defunct. The procedure for submitting papers to PCID is to post them to the < ISCID Archive >. Then, one of the ISCID creationist honchos approves it and it goes into the next issue. There are a dozen or so submissions since the last issue in Dec 2005. Why let your journal go defunct when you could just bundle those as your next issue? Why let us exult in the fact that Revolutionary New ID Science can't keep a single journal going, when you could just round up these bullshit 'papers' and pretend not to be defunct?


Posted by: Louis on Aug. 03 2007,10:22

Yeah! This Sal editting other people's posts thing is disgusting.

Wes and Steve would never stoop to editting other people's posts because we here at AtBC are not afraid of dissent or discussion. Also because we know we have the facts on our side!

Louis

Edited by stevestory  and Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 03 2007, 16:24

No it fecking well wasn't. WRE

Yes it fecking well was. SQS

Will the pair of you knock it off? All this editting of posts and reality by supplying overwhelming and uncontrovertable evidence is interfering with my young earth creationism.

This post is purely intended as mockery of Salvador "I love lying, me" Cordova's Iraqi Information Minister-like tendancies when it comes to editting other people's posts. I categorically state, for the record, that neither Wesley R. Elsberry, nor Steve Story have ever editted any other poster's posts to the best of my knowledge. Except this one. Which of course they didn't edit. I should also point out that neither of them is a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. a) Because it doesn't exist and b) because at least 50% of them are not an atheist. Why does my head hurt? I should always remember never to try to duplicate UD style tard on a full stomach.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 03 2007,10:27

Louis whatever happened to the animated Neill De Grasse Tyson thingy?
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,10:36

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 03 2007,09:44)
Oops!  Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunk: Hi,
If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who
speaks falsely will stand in my presence."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How old is Sal anyway?  He seems like such a child.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 03 2007,10:37

Hermagoras:

 

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

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.

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



I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:



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

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.

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



I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 03 2007,10:37

Damn! Was I meant to learn how to animate Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

My suggestion would probably involve Mrs De Grasse Tyson....

Anyway, colour me clueless on this one, what are we talking about. Exposure to The Argument Regarding Design* has momentarily blanked my mind. Remind me....

Louis

*Hat tip to Zachriel, love your work!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 03 2007,10:53

Oh well.  Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'.  and i loved it.  and now it is gone.  probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,10:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,10:37)
Hermagoras:

     

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

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.

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



I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

     

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

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.

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



I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all limit where we will participate.  What Sal has done is egregious on many, many levels, as I am pointing out:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
reciprocal opportunity is Tiggy setting up his own website and seeing who wants to listen to him and engage his arguments

Invitation to the public to participate is dropped.  People interested in sophistry rather than science are shown the door.  You can set up your forum the way you want.

I have prominently posted critical objections to my ideas by qualified scientists like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison in this forum.  Tiggy couldn't even solve a simple algebra problem yet claimed years of grad level math.  Heck,the problem was hardly arithmetic!

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking.  It was marginally entertaining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not really.

Show me one respectable board where the moderator plays by your rules (mutilating posts and only acknowledging such mutilation when caught).  It's unethical behavior, pure and simple.  Besides, Tiggy's posts were not ad hominem. They questioned your behavior, not your person.  If anything was off-topic, your algebra problem was.  Why should Tiggy be your performing monkey when you won't even answer his on-topic questions and when you ask him questions in a thread to which you will not admit him entry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,11:05

Please join my thread < The Rhetoric of Moderation > over at Young Cosmos.  I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission, unless he violates his own stated rules.  (Well, I mean violates them worse than he usually does.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 03 2007,11:17

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 03 2007,11:53)
Oh well.  Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'.  and i loved it.  and now it is gone.  probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was Louis' previous avatar, which conveyed that he not only didn't suffer fools gladly, but gladly made fools to suffer. Flat Feynman seems a tad less hostile, with a bit more twinkle.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,11:26

Sal < responds to my challenge. >  Kind of.

I wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Addendum: I started this thread and so I decide who gets invited. And I say everybody should come here (Sal included), discuss the rhetoric of moderation, and nobody on this thread should be moved to the Recycle Bin. Those are my rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal responds:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will do my best to honor them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WTF?  How hard is it to honor?  Just don't kick anybody off.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,11:41

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,11:44

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he he.  

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To which I respond:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2007,11:47

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,11:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he he.  

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To which I respond:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Things are not going well for Sal.


*Reaches for popcorn*
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,11:50

You're not going to win a debate on a forum Salvador controls. You're going to make him look stupid, and then get banned and whitewashed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2007,11:50



SAL IS TEH CULTURE WARRIOR!!
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,11:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2007,11:47)
Things are not going well for Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No indeed.  I refrained from commenting on his final sentence:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think anybody who's openly worried about his sanity should stay off the Intertubes.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,11:51

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:50)
You're not going to win a debate on a forum Salvador controls. You're going to make him look stupid, and then get banned and whitewashed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Natch.

Edit: That's why I'm copying my posts over here.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,12:09

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,22:38)
Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In general those kinds of words would get you moved to the Bathroom Wall, but this time I'm regarding them as a kind of involuntary yelp produced by running into the astonishingly dishonest Salvador Cordova. There is absolutely nothing I would put past that guy. I wouldn't feel a twinge of surprise If he just started writing approving comments under our names on his site.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,12:10

The < latest >:

Hermagoras:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm quite sure it appeared that way to you.

I'm well aware from a rhetorical perspective the advantage the other side has in preying upon the lack of familiarity by the audience with the subject matter.

Then chunk complains I haven't convinced him. I ask if he even understands rate constants or read the papers. Attributing his lack of understanding to my inability to explain is infuriating. It does not reflect well on me when this button is pushed.

It would be like me spending two hours giving a mathematicl proof for something, and then someone casually saying, "I don't see your point." I then realize they didn't even understand the basics and are uwilling to even learn the basics before they offer reasoned critiques. I honestly thought to myself, "YOU RETARD, you complain I didn't explain myself well, when in fact it's your inability to understand the science."

I'm willing to help and teach, I'm uwilling to spoon feed. When I get objections from people demanding to be spoon fed, I'll happily shove the spoon down their throat. When I get that mad, it does not reflect well on me or this forum.

In contrast, someone willing to learn, who does not know anything, I'm willing to teach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me just pause for a moment to say, what an a*****e.

Whew.  I feel better.  

Ok, now I, Hermagoras, respond:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 03 2007,12:11

Wow!  Look at this guy:


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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova wrote:
3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or perhaps the Hecklers arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with that the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures. Tiggy raised some very interesting points that I was eager to see discussed. Your response was to edit, move/hide, and avoid questions. Very disappointing.


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

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.

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


Sal, you put yourself out there in the public eye in the Evolution vs creation controversy. You speak in public, you blog in public, you even wade into public forums like Scienceblogs and the Sci Phi Show. You positively gush when someone acknowledges seeing you on C-SPAN. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe you are some sensitive flower that withers under heat? I don't buy it. The only difference as far as I can tell between this forum and others that you participate is that this is your forum where you can't walk away when the questions get too tough, but you can wield the tools of moderation to ensure that someone who disagrees with you doesn't get a fair hearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Rob on Aug. 03 2007,12:25

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,12:49

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,12:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah but Sal's responded.  He says it's all in Bender's 1974 letter to Nature (quote-mined by creationist RH Brown).  So Sal
< responds >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer was given by Bender:

Quote:
"The differences [re 14C age] can be reconciled if it is assumed that the 14C age is wrong, but such an assertion would undermine other conclusions."

They would reject it because it does not conform to what they believe to be true. Darwinian evolution takes precedence over physical evidence.

The scientific community had people who were fully cognizant of these problems.

I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fortunately, I can read the original.  So I < respond: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again with the Bender. You're taking one sentence out of a 33 year old letter to Nature that has had virtually no impact. Google Scholar has it cited 5 times, and 2 of those cites are by creationists: Brown and Gish. So I'd say its impact is virtually nil.

Why? Perhaps because Bada, who is the target of Bender's critique, gave a devastating reply in the same issue. (This is not cited by Brown. I wonder why?) Bada's response begins:

Quote:

Bender's review of my work is both inaccurate and incomplete. He has not cited two of my publications dealing with aspartic acid racemisation dating. (Although one paper was only recently published. I sent Bender a preprint the first or this year when he informed me he was writing a review.) In those articles I show that after ‘calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.

No wonder nobody took Bender's critique seriously since then. Meanwhile Brown quotes one sentence as though it proves something and you quote indirectly (via Brown) rather than from the original paper. If you'd read the original, as I have, you'd see that it was dispatched immediately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,13:04

Because < I can't resist: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About Bender (now at Princeton).  He seems like a fine scientist.  Note that he's not published any rebuttal of Bada since 1974.  So if his 1974 critique was so great, why hasn't he picked up on it?  He provides the answer in his final paragraph:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Their findings, and the fact that reasonable ages and temperatures are sometimes obtained, indicates that the method has potential. It clearly faces many basic problems, however, and in my opinion no palaeoclinatic or geochronological inferences should be drawn from racemisation data until the basic geochemistry is thoroughly understood and the bases or the method firmly established.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since then, of course, the geochemistry has advanced considerably.  Bender, as a major geochemist, has apparently not seen fit to attack the dating method since 1974.  Which suggests that quoting that 1974 paper (indirectly, via Brown) as support of anything today is not really going to solve anything.  

Are you saying he's some sort of a coward or co-conspirator?  Or perhaps a "retard"? Or, maybe, you know, "scum"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 03 2007,13:05

OK, it's my turn to point this out.

Sal whines      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can these guys spell PROJECTION? Here's Bill, Denyse and Sal, relaxing at home with an example of the designer's handiwork.

Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 03 2007,13:22

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 03 2007,13:05)
OK, it's my turn to point this out.

Sal whines        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can these guys spell PROJECTION? Here's Bill, Denyse and Sal, relaxing at home with an example of the designer's handiwork.

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


From left to right, Denyse, Bill, Sal, right?
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,13:45

And finally:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova wrote:
I'm suggesting the racemization data as it stands shows serious systematic errors in C-14 dating.


I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen you quote from any contemporary scientific literature on the issue, so it's hard to see any contact with the literature "as it stands." Rather, you quote (via a secondary source) a sentence from a 33 year old rebutted letter.

I have recently learned of the competing terms "quote mining" and "literature bluffing" to refer to various tactics allegedly used by opponents in this debate.

This example isn't literature bluffing, since it shows no contact with the recent literature. But it's sure quote mining.

I think this is a common rhetorical tactic of creationists: take a sentence, quote it out of context, and then circulate it -- it's a game of "telephone" or what the British sometimes call "Chinese whispers." What it is not is a responsible use of sources.

Again, I'm pointing out something very specific about the rhetoric of this debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 03 2007,14:10

OK, Sal has now officially gone < round the tardy twist >.

Just read it.  I can't bear to quote any more of this crap.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 03 2007,14:21

I love this thread. :D
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 03 2007,14:34

As one who makes his living in the arts, I have no idea what sal's response had to do with anything, let alone your comment.

Sal strikes me as that undergrad, who immediately after listening to some lecture, sits in the cafeteria discussing how the State of Missouri can easily secede from the union and become an independent country.

Except, he's 40ish, isn't he?
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 03 2007,16:35

< Song for Sal and the IDCists >

Louis

P.S. The audio quality is less than great, but dammit I LOVE this song.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 03 2007,17:09

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,08:21)
Let's see how long I last < over  there >:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Longer than me.  My comments were deleted within four minutes of posting.  Literally.

Within the space of ten minutes, I signed up with five different login accounts (including "salisaliar" and "salisacoward").  They all disappeared, one right after the other.

The last time I tried, I got a message saying that the moderator had to approve all new membership requests.

So if you tried to sign in and got that same message, that'd be MY fault.


(snicker)


Sal is a coward.  A gonadless coward.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 03 2007,22:46

Cordova:



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

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

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



Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal < blithering > on about the TSPGRID example and "omega". Here's my < response > to Sal's rant...



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

Sal,

Yes, that is amusing. Wrong again, but amusing.

As to definitions, I have repeatedly made the point that what CSI is depends upon how it is recognized, which is a property (allegedly) of the math Dembski has given. The “physical/conceptual” text is a descriptive interpretation of what the math defines. It is not, itself, the definition. We addressed the math. We didn’t address every handwaving description Dembski wrote.

As to “omega”, Sal is utterly confused. There are two different uses of “omega” in Dembski’s stuff. In The Design Inference, “omega” refers to “probabilistic resources”, a mapping function that yields “saturated” probabilities and events. TSPGRID doesn’t change “omega”_TDI, contrary to Sal’s claim. In No Free Lunch, “omega” is the “reference class of possible events”. TSPGRID is incapable of “increasing omega” by its operation.

Dembski discusses calculation of “omega” on p.52 of NFL. There, he gives the example of a six-sided die rolled 6,000,000 times. His “omega” for this “event” is “all 6-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to 6,000,000”. In other words, “omega” includes every possible way that one could roll a die 6,000,000 times. In other equations, if one rolls an n-sided die k time, “omega” is k*n. (This is for the case in which only the distribution of rolls matters, which is the context of Dembski’s example, and not the sequence of rolls. For a sequence of die rolls, “omega” becomes n^k.)

As for the Sal’s claim that TSPGRID “increases omega as it outputs data”, that’s just silly. One does have to take into account the number of runs of TSPGRID, just as Sal takes into account the number of coins in his idee fixe. Sal’s objection to TSPGRID is exactly the same as objecting to coin-stacking on the grounds that he “increases omega as he adds coins”.

Sal says that we didn’t give “omega” for TSPGRID. This is literally true, but we do expect some minimal competence from our readers. The “omega”_NFL for TSPGRID with 4n^2 nodes run k times stated in the same way as Dembski’s dice example is “all (4n^2)!-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to k”, or, more simply, k*(4n^2)! as anyone with a clue should be able to work out from the information that we gave. If you change n or k, you get a different “omega”, just as you get a different “omega” if you stack dice instead of coins, or stack a different number of dice or coins. Once n and k are fixed, as in some specific instance of one or more runs of TSPGRID to be analyzed as an “event” in Dembski’s parlance, “omega” is fixed as well.

So Sal’s random charge of “error” here is just as amusingly inept as his previous outings. It seems that Sal is not well acquainted with Dembski’s work, as “omega” is not all that mysterious. I suspect that Sal “knows” that the TSPGRID example just “has” to be wrong, therefore, any scattershot objection made will do. But if TSPGRID were actually wrong, and Sal were actually capable of analyzing it, he would have come up with a valid objection in the first place, and not have had to resort to flinging any odd objection at hand and hoping something sticks. So far there has been the “a deterministic version of TSPGRID doesn’t output CSI!” objection (which is why TSPGRID is non-deterministic), the “TSPGRID doesn’t provide PHYSICAL information!” objection (though several of Dembski’s own examples share this “error” and a run of TSPGRID or any other algorithm certainly is physical), and now the “you didn’t say what Omega was!” objection (where “omega” is easily calculated given the information we provided).

But I guess I will have to make do with amusement at further instances of random objections.

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


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 04 2007,00:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova:  If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS?  I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions.  I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way.  I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions.  He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post.  :angry:

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is).  Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 04 2007,01:53

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 04 2007,00:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova:  If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS?  I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions.  I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way.  I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions.  He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post.  :angry:

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is).  Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't new dude. Sal has been that way for quite some time. Why post on a site where he has control? You gotta know that he would "modify" your posts.

That guy is the sorta prick that would use ten sentences containing the longest words he can google to say something simple.

example:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


tit
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 04 2007,05:10

his one man moderation band is feeling the strain I think, at least he seems to be getting more and more ill-tempered. His tactic of ignoring critical questions fails to work when nobody else is replying. They are just left hanging (when not deleted).

Pass the popcorn Lenny.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,08:37

Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal.  After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

He is a ball-less coward.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 04 2007,09:38

< Give me some love, peoples >:
scordova:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts. The racemization data are facts. Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.

When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim.

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hermagoras (using Tiggy/OC's fine post here as inspiration):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is rich, considering that the vast majority of ID and creationist writing amounts to rhetorical critique.

You didn't actually provide any facts or data.

Let me point out again that Tiggy didn't try to refute the math because that wasn't his point. His point was rather about the use of the math. I believe the term you engineers use is "GIGO."

The fact that nobody who actually works in the field would accept your critique suggests that something's at issue besides the blindness or stupidity of everybody but you. Unless you're really the smartest guy ever (but that position has already been claimed by autodidact DaveScot at UD).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 04 2007,14:15

Sal appears to have found the Ban button and used it wholesale.

I suspect we've got another roaring success just like overwhelmingevicence on our hands!

There are plenty of reasonable unanswered questions left on your forum Sal. Why not spend the time while you are waiting for people to comment answering them?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 04 2007,14:20

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:37)
Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal.  After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

He is a ball-less coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I remember your Sal questions over at PT. I also remember him not ever answering. Sal is probably the most anoying (to me) UD poster. Quite an acomplishment considering the company he is in.
Posted by: Rob on Aug. 04 2007,17:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,22:46)
Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal < blithering > on about the TSPGRID example and "omega".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal has a major brain cramp that prevents him from grokking issues having to do with the conservation of CSI.

One of his typical examples of CSI is 500 coins on the floor all heads up, which he says constitutes 500 bits of CSI.  Even if the coins were turned heads up by a deterministic process, say a robot, Sal insists that the all-heads-up pattern has 500 bits of CSI.  He's been claiming this for over three years now, even though I've pointed out to him repeatedly that we can always increase the number of coins to exceed the CSI in the robot.  (This is exactly the point of TSPGRID, except that TSPGRID is a better example since it's nondeterministic.)

When I tried to pin him down on this < a year ago >, the conversation went nowhere, with Sal claiming that he needed Dembski to explain the following parenthetical statement from NFL:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(if A is defined in relation to \Omega_1 and B in relation to \Omega_2, we can let \Omega be the Cartesian product of \Omega_1 and \Omega_2, and then embed A and B canonically in \Omega)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski's statement is perfectly clear, and I explained it in detail to Sal, but Sal said he needed to hear it from Dembski.

Amazingly, as of a few weeks ago, Sal still didn't understand the problem with the robot and the coins:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sal >:   For example, it is improbable that 500 coins in a room on the floor will be heads.  It is theoretically possible that there exists a robot governed by deterministic laws which can take the coins in a room and ensure any initial condition of coins in the room will eventually result in 500 coins being heads by the operation of the robot.  However, the a priori probability of such a machine existing in the first place (via a stochastic process) is on average more remote than the chance of 500 coins being heads.  A bit value can then be assigned to the a priori probability of the robot being the source of a new probability distribution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 04 2007,19:38

My favorite post to Sal < ever >.  Do you think he'll get the double meaning of the last paragraph?  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Following up on some comments earlier:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts.The racemization data are facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A couple of points:
1. You continue to have a really strange view of rhetoric, one that is best described as outdated.  In this statement, for example, you hold to a notion of "rhetoric vs. facts," as though facts can be known outside of their articulation.  Rhetoric is nowadays best understood as "a way of knowing," that is, as epistemic.  

2. Which data are facts?  The ones you posted that were admittedly made up?  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I won't comment on the even cruder distinction between "fact" and "opinion," which is one that I complicate in the first day of the composition classes I teach.  Suffice it to say that you set up this forum by declaring your stated interest in the importance of rhetoric.  For you to dismiss it now as not "relevant to truthfulness" (in a creationist forum, I want to say "truthiness") is a bit strange.  But that is the way of your flock.  A great many of your compatriots spend the bulk of their time doing nothing but rhetorical criticism.  That's where I would put Jonathan Wells's Icons and pretty much the entire output of Philip Johnson.  Dembski is more than rhetoric in philosophical drag: his work also includes pseudo-mathematics and theology ("explanations of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing," as Mencken put it).  But "rhetoric" suddenly becomes unimportant when you think you've got a fact in your hand -- when in fact, you don't even have one in the bush.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness the claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's interesting but wrong.  Didn't you take technical writing?  The rhetoric of documentation in engineering is crucial to whether it will fly or not.  For example, one of the most important thinkers in visual rhetoric of science, Edward Tufte of Yale, has blamed the rhetorical structure of PowerPoint for the Columbia disaster.  See his Beautiful Evidence (Graphics Press)  for details.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm actually judging based on your failure to provide actual evidence.  Like your man Dembski, you are overrating the importance of philosophy in science (hence words like "invalid," "illogical," and "first principles").  

Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 04 2007,19:46

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 04 2007,19:54

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 04 2007,19:46)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks!  

Disclaimer: as a major free speech advocate, I'm not against learning from "the literature" (wink wink).  In fact, I spent most of my teen years deeply immersed in "the literature."  But what I learned was unrealistic, and real-world experience tempered my views.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 04 2007,20:45

A look into the < Recycle Bin > over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 04 2007,20:54

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2007,20:45)
A look into the < Recycle Bin > over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy thread convergence, Batman!  My post on this very practice of moving and erasure used Stalin's picture editing as an example, and < has itself been removed to the recycle bin >, thus perfectly illustrating  my point.  :angry:  

And then . . . wait for it . . . someone at Uncommonly Dense < mentions the Stalin editing > in the comments following that strange Dembski rant about the (non) editing of some comments by Wolpert.  

Naturally, the commenter gets it wrong on the specifics as well, adding Lenin to what was really Stalin's practice of removing Trotsky and other former friends from pictures.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,21:20

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooouuuucccchhhh !!!!!!!!!!!


Sal, of course, will remain utterly oblivious and entirely untouched.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 04 2007,23:08

Sal - serial rhetorical dater.

Even better than the fundamentalist bible reader who confuses the menu with the meal.

You can't eat rhetoric Sal (you can't **** it either)
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,00:11

< One more > before I turn in:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's an interesting thing, Sal.  You write:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With no training in 2004 I deduced Reiner von Protch's [sic] numbers (which by the way are represented by some dots in that graph), were fabricated, bogus, and useless. He got away with fraud for 30 years. I'd say, even with no training, I can smell a rat. But you don't have to believe one iota of what I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I found where you made this claim on Uncommon Descent, but only after von Protsch's fraud was discovered.  Should I believe that you found this out months earlier?  Should I ask you to prove that you knew von Protsch was fraudulent  before anybody else?  That's an extraordinary claim to make, and yet you've provided no evidence for it.  

Why is this relevant?  Because you say that Tiggy could not do the math you asked him to do.  But if your asking was a red herring (as I think it was), and not relevant, then he has no reason to prove his bona fides to you.  The thing is, I think that Tiggy could do the math, but chose not to because he recognized that it was not relevant to his original, unanswered question.  

As to your ability to concede some points: Congratulations.  I agree that your conversation with Jellison, for example, was unproblematic because, as you put it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. He knows what he is talking about
2. He doesn't willfullly [sic] misrepresent others
3. He is cordial and civil
4. He takes time to understand the opposing position, spending hours analyizing [sic] it and carefully considering it, going to great pains to represent it accurately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These are all behaviors characteristic of Dr. Jellison in that exchange.  I am not sure they represent your behavior in, for example, your exchange with Tiggy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2007,08:40

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,10:48

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 05 2007,08:40)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've < responded > to Sal's latest rant with selections from OA/Tiggy's message to me.  Thanks for permitting me to do that.  Let's see if he bans me for bringing you back in by proxy.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,12:06

And again:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova wrote  

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

There is a different interaction when trying to persuade than when trying to solicit corrective review and feedback.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, what do you know?  We agree.  I'm sorry, however, that you're getting this impression:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm getting the impression you're trying to put a one size fits all evaluation of what I write. What the rhetoric applied in one venue (like UD) is inappropriate for another (the discussion forum).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem, IMO, is that although there are important differences between the kinds of rhetorical moments you identify, they are really points on a continuum and the boundaries are very, very fuzzy.

Consider what happens when a scholar submits a work for publication.  Now, there is a crucial sense in which the work is persuasive: in the first instance, the contributing author is trying to convince two anonymous peers that the work is worth publishing.  Later, should the work be published, one goal is to convince readers that the work is correct.  (Note that I'm using "convince" for your "persuade"; these have subtly distinct meanings in rhetoric.  One form of the distinction is that people are convinced of a view but persuaded to action.  We might say, for example, that some author(s) are trying to persuade others to perform follow-up experiments.)  

OK, so in all of these ways the work attempts to persuade (or convince).  The act of seeking publication is even kind of aggressive, in that the author(s) think the work should be out there and that it demands attention (at least of the tenure committee!;).  

But there are other ways that the act of seeking publication is profoundly submissive.  We say that works are "submitted" for publication, and the word is meaningful.  The authors will (generally) submit to the judgment of the peer reviewers.  The authors will (generally) submit later to the scientific reception of the work.  Publication is an attempt an convincing and/or persuading, yes, but it is also and at the same time a submission to the judgment of the scientific community.  

The problem I'm seeing is that it's not clear where this forum lies, or what the boundaries are.  For example, you've been persuaded to drop some of your arguments.  Good: that shows something, including that the forum may be persuasive from the perspective of the other (if not from your perspective).  But in a dialogic forum, persuasion and convincing go on all the time.  Perhaps your recent decision to close the forum to all but the invited is an acknowledgment of the ambiguous status of forums like this.  But as I've suggested earlier, it's easy to use doctrines like "civility" to avoid uncomfortable questions.  

Aristotle famously defined rhetoric as "the counterpart of dialectic."  The precise meaning of this phrase has been debated ever since, but the general view now is that rhetoric and dialectic are not easily separated -- no more than "fact" and "theory," to go back to my old debate (cut off at UD) with Gil Dodgen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Visible < here >, at least for the moment.  ???
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2007,12:29

LOL!  Thanks Hermagoras for today's laugh.

I notice that Sal still does not address AT ALL the huge holes in his reasoning and his invalid assumptions, but is still whining about "Waaa!!  He won't plug numbers into the calculator!!"

NO mention of why he thinks the racemization constant should be unchanging, in light of the tons of physical evidence that shows it does change considerably.

NO mention of the empirically measured D/L ratios

NO mention that if even if you assume a non-changing constant and use the kinetic equation with the measured D/L values, you still get dates that are way older than the YEC 6000 year old model.

The only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both.

Ask Sal which one he thinks is wrong.  :p

Oh, and I just loved the fact that Asshat Sal now accuses me of being a criminal low-life, and that he has disdain for my criminal behavior against scientific inquiry

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,13:19

Occam's Aftershave: Thanks.  I do what I can.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,14:12

Again with Sal.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hermagoras sez:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But earlier you < wrote >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 05 2007,14:53

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 05 2007,14:12)
Again with Sal.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hermagoras sez:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But earlier you < wrote >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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


LOL.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,17:05

So Sal has < responded >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits. The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Some of the dots are well beyond reasonable physical and chemical limits, so much so that some scientists are arguing that yet-to-be-discovered chemical laws must be at work since C-14 is "God's truth". But this is like Bill Clinton trying to explain the DNA evidence with Lewinski by some yet-to-be-discovered chemical law. Something doesn't ring valid with such a promisory note.

The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning. It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. I could express it mathematically, but making it more rigorous does not make it more clear (like a legal document is more rigorous, but not necessarily more clear). This is perhaps THE greatest challenge in scientific rhetoric...

But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.


In similar manner, the green line demarcates the ideal result. When I said "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," it is in the sense of the temperature experiment I described. Some dots ought to be above the green and some below. But in actuality, most if not all are below the green line, some way below.

Further, the actual distirbution of dots is clearly non-Random, but systematically down. Hence, this is not suggestive of random error but a systematic error (exactly the point of my thread). It would be like us expecting to see students get lab results from 68 to 88 degrees, but instead they ALL report results from 48-58 degrees. Something would be really wrong in that case.

If your issue is my wording, I accept the editorial objection.

Another way of saying it is that we would expect lots of dots above the green line. The plot suggests systematic errors because all the dots are below the green line, and some VERY far below it.

Now, how far above or below the green is tolerable? The graph itself suggests what are tolerable variations, namely the width defined between the purple lines. But this variation is centered about the red line, not the green line. This is suggestive of a systematic error (meanin an error resulting from the way we make measurements).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This seems like obvious BS (ideal?  what the hell? -- and also, there's that whole decay thing which is evaded), but I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond beyond the obvious, and he's kicked off all the people who know anything. Could somebody help me in responding?  On the board or in a private message -- either is fine.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2007,18:39

Double LOL!  What a big smelly pile of tard from Sol!  He's caught, he knows he's caught, so he's doing his best word-salad tossing to try and confuse the issue.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova:Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask him what the 'reasonable physical and chemical limits' are, and how he determined them.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova:The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask him why the green line (= zero change in the rate constant) should be considered ideal, when it is just a placeholder for actual empirical results?  Ask him what 'too much variation' is, and how he determined it is not permissible.  Permissible by whom?

Ask him why both M Brown and  RH Brown agree and accept that the rate constant diminishes with sample age?  

Ask him why, even if we force fit to the empirical D/L data to his his "ideal" line (as RH Brown did in his Table 2) that the equation still produces ages well older than the claimed YEC 6000 YBP?

Ask him if he accepts the empirically measured D/L ratios as accurate (which he must, as he's been basing his whole claims on them)

Ask him if he accepts the kinetic equation to be correct (which he must, as he's been using it constantly)

As I mentioned before, the only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both.  Point this out to him, than get him to explain it.

Oh, and ask him why he's completely avoiding ThoughtProvoker's questions on the actual AAR/C14 thread.

Give the asshat plenty of rope... ;)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2007,18:55

Ooh, I missed one!  Ask him why he claims this  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asshat Cordova:  C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When in the very second post of the AAR/C14 thread he presents Walt Brown's "excellent explanation of Radio-Carbon Dating flaws" that states

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

M Brown, RH Brown, Walt Brown....is there some cosmic wingnut connection here I should know about?   ;)
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 05 2007,19:10

I liked the "It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it" line.

Henry
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 05 2007,22:43

Thanks for the help OA.  Here's my response (posted over there):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is . . . easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You ain't kidding, buster.  But I object to a lot more than your wording.  You write,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



True enough.  But the problem is not the English: what you said would be contradictory in any language.  It's practically a syllogism.  I'll call it

Cordova's Rule
Premise A: The green line represents an unchanging rate constant.
Premise B: Points far away from the green line represent fraudulent data.
Conclusion: Non-fraudulent data must show a rate constant that is or is very close to unchanging.

If you hold the first two premises, the conclusion follows.  If you think the rate constant changes, then  either Premise A or Premise B must be wrong.  

But the rate constant diminishes, it does not go up, with age.  Hey, even RH Brown accepts that, and Michael Brown.  So why would we expect any of the dots to go above the green line?

A few more questions:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are those limits, and how did you determine them?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see why it's the ideal, or how you've determined what's a permissible variation. It certainly doesn't seem like an ideal that anyone in the scientific community buys.  And please don't quote that 1974 letter again -- as I mentioned, that was refuted at the time of publication, in the very next pages.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argument by analogy: a nice rhetorical form.  It's a bit simplistic, though, and it assumes a lot.  It's only appropriate if the unchanging "ideal" rate in your premises is correct, which requires (I believe) rejecting either the kinetic equation and the accuracy of empirically measured D/L ratios.

A more appropriate analogy would be if you gave everybody a thermometer in a room at 72.0 degrees F and then sent them out in different directions in the dead of winter.  Each person was told to check the thermometer at a different time: the first at 1 minute, the second at 2 minutes, etc.  Probably there'd be some variation depending on where they walked, the different conditions, etc., but the measurements taken later go lower and lower.  

H
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2007,23:08

Looks good H, let's see how Sal wiggles and squirms to avoid the questions

On a side note, I see Sal finally responded to ThoughtProvoker's excellent questions on the AAR/C14 thread.  What did brave Mr. Cordova do?  He completely ignored TP's questions, and instead launched into a simple minded explanation for how exponential decay works. Never mind that TP has an EE degree, has known about exponential decay since freshman calculus, and asked Sal specific intelligent questions about the exponential equation Sal used in the graph.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

(shake head and chuckles out loud)

Sal, don't ever change, EVAR! :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 06 2007,02:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C-14 under current conditions is sometimes accurate to within 2 years! But there are conditions when something as weakly accurate as amino acid racemization can surpass C-14 dating, namely, if the atmospheric concentration of C-14 in the past was less than it is now. Other lines of data show this rather convincingly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if there is a technical flaw in our (Walt, RH, Michael Brown, myself, others), this would be a good time to get feedback.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=45 >

ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 06 2007,08:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean like the multiple independent C14 cal curves I posted and explained to Sal in my very first message there?

The ones that clearly show the historical C14/C12 ratio was actually slightly higher in the past 20,000 years than it is now?

The ones that mean without a correction factor, items dated with C14 are really slightly older than the uncorrected C14 measured date?

The ones that Sal hand waved away by claiming "circular reasoning", then summarily deleted?

BTW, all that data is still available in the YC recycle bin under "Tiggy's remains".  I'd be tickled pink in someone would repost it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 06 2007,09:11

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 06 2007,08:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean like the multiple independent C14 cal curves I posted and explained to Sal in my very first message there?

The ones that clearly show the historical C14/C12 ratio was actually slightly higher in the past 20,000 years than it is now?

The ones that mean without a correction factor, items dated with C14 are really slightly older than the uncorrected C14 measured date?

The ones that Sal hand waved away by claiming "circular reasoning", then summarily deleted?

BTW, all that data is still available in the YC recycle bin under "Tiggy's remains".  I'd be tickled pink in someone would repost it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


them's the ones :)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 06 2007,11:29

Well Hermagoras, Cordova's respone to your last post is up.  To absolutely no one 's surprise, spineless Sal once again completely ignored the tough  technical questions.  He did manage to accuse me of quote mining though :p , and now claims that anyone who gives the YEC articles a "fair and charitable reading" MUST agree with his position.


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 07 2007,00:55

I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos.  I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board.  I've been able to post a message to that effect < here >.  I wonder what will happen next . . . .
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 07 2007,01:04

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 07 2007,00:55)
I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos.  I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board.  I've been able to post a message to that effect < here >.  I wonder what will happen next . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was anyone else besides Slimy Sal, I'd say "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".  However, considering what he's done to the account of virtually every single dissenter though...

Let us know if you get an explanation and can post again.

In the mean time, Asshat's got a boner on because he was introduced to a new YEC website full of sciency-sounding gobbledygook.

Different day, same circus, same clown.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 08 2007,11:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!!
Comments (7)
Posted in Advanced Creation Science, Speed of Light by Salvador @ Jul 25, 2007

[Advanced Creation Science]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL Advanced Creation Science.

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/blog/ >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 08 2007,11:36

Looks like the YEC short bus just got a little shorter.  :p
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 08 2007,11:37

"For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!"


< http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/wad_factors_59.html >


Design?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 08 2007,11:47

Note on the < YoungCosmos site >        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
YoungCosmos has been overhauled and upgraded into 3 websites, and has also moved.

YoungCosmos is now split into 3 websites;

1. www.YoungCosmos.com (main website, and portal to everything else)

2. www.YoungCosmosBlog.com
(a place for fellowship, encouragement, and inspiration)

3. www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com (professional level YEC science forum)

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


One wonders what a "professional level YEC science forum" might look like. Here's a guess.



BTW, the comments on that announcement, featuring Hermagoras and Sal, are pretty rich as well.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 08 2007,13:29

Is this the art of banning without banning?

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=30 >
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 09 2007,09:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2007,13:29)
Is this the art of banning without banning?

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=30 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'm now able to post as Hermagoras2.  Nothing substantive yet -- I'll respond soon with more substance and aggression.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 09 2007,10:06

Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 09 2007,10:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly < kicking ass >.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 09 2007,10:40

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 09 2007,10:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly < kicking ass >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hermagoras - That's funny!  Thanks for the link!  Thought provoker list 56 diffrent ways to date things for Sal.  

Sal responds:  "That's too many".

What else is YEC gonna say?  It must totally suck to be Sal!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 09 2007,10:52

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 09 2007,10:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly < kicking ass >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I've been following that too - it's hilarious!  Sal invited TP over because TP is a EE like Sal.    Now TP's not playing the straight man flunky that Sal expected.  Oops! :D

How long before TP's account starts having 'posting issues'?    :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 13 2007,07:11

Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be :)

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us  :p

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk"  ;) and he asks
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true!;) depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 13 2007,08:13

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2007,15:11)
Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be :)

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us  :p

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk"  ;) and he asks
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true!) depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEATHEN!! BACTERIAL ENTROPY ALWAYS GOES DOWN , EXCEPT WHEN IT GOES UP. IT NEVER GOES SIDEWAYS EXCEPT WHEN FATHER O'< DON JUAN >  GETS THE KEYS TO THE CELLAR. HOMO!!!
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2007,16:30

Up and down? Nonsense - flagella go in circles, just like any outboard motor propeller! :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 13 2007,16:55

Sal sounds like a precocious 10 yr old muttering to himself


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aww


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 13 2007,16:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2007,16:55)
Sal sounds like a precocious 10 yr old muttering to himself
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aww
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darn that evil sun!!11!!1

(What the hell?)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 13 2007,17:11

The thing that amuses me most about ole Sal is he can say this with a straight face

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
uncertain effect on warming of Earth if sun radiating in lower wavelength, there needs to be a compensating mechanism, although photo synthesis and color vision could remain unaffected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After all god is standing right there doing it in the first place, what better compensating mechanism could you ask for? Why appeal to any other force, or try to rationalize it. I mean, at what point is Sal going to start investigating the mechanism  the universe was created with in the first place? Or how the bush could burn? Or how exactly water turned to wine?

At what point does Sal draw the line? I suspect it's at the point the line kinda blurs into a load of blah equations, just complex enough to be fuzzy to non scientists. just like the entire fan base of ID/DS/UD in fact.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2007,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

Henry
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 14 2007,12:44

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2007,22:17)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

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


What Sal thinks he is doing is providing explanations for observations that fit (mangle) the data but which also support his conclusion of a young universe.

If we adjust the speed of light like so then the universe is only 6000 years old

I mean, one of his aims is to make the figures for accelerated nuclear decay work out so that < Adam and Eve > don't get fried!

So, after getting (from what I can tell) roundly slated by SCheeseman who says    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you have two factors that would fundamentally alter the whole dynamics of a supernova: the ratio of the rates of expansion to radioactive decay is completely different, and the ratio of the energy released by thermal means and by radioactive means is altered as well. Despite this, we observe the same decay curves, even in galaxies 200 million light years away as we do in those 10 milion light years away.

The same arguments can be applied to Cepheid variables; at least some component of the variation is gravitational, and the ratio of the graviatational to CDK-dependent components is so vastly different in the CDK model that we should see fundamentally different behaviour even as close as the Globular clusters, let alone the Andromeda galaxy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal then says says    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thank you for pointing out difficulties in our ideas, but I'm at the point I will probably split time to gather research on the thawing effect and the distance dilation issue. We have prima facie evidence this could be the case. Tifft argued there is strong evidence of time-varying redshifts. There is no reason the experiment can't be repeated.

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



Yeah, no reason at all except I think it would be the first ever actual ID/YEC/IDC experiment carried out to my knowledge.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the thawing tests succeed, well, then there will be a lot of hard work ahead to find a viable theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=132 >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 14 2007,13:02

Sal also mentioned something called the "Evolutionary hypothesis of radioactivity". I'm guessing he really means the idea that standard radioactivity axioms support an old earth, so they must be wrong.

When asked to expand upon it he says




     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are several ideas for the presence of radioactivity:

1. stellar-planetary evolution (the evolutionary hypothesis) [not the same as biological evolution]

2. created radioactivity with missing isotopes [Sarfati Rolling Eyes ]

3. created radioactivity with accelerated decay that makes missing isotopes (Setterfield)

4. little or no created radioactivity, a late phenomena due to a rare mechanical, chemical, electrical reaction or a cosmogenic source or sources of things like neutrons(Brown unpublished, undeveloped speculation), followed up with accelerated decay


The problem with the stellar-planetary evolution model is uranium, being dense, should have sunk to the depths of the Earth and stayed there, not risen to the surface. Yet we find it in relative abundance at the surface. This would be true in any sort of "liquid" model of solid rock which geologist use. They say solid rock can be modeled like a liquid over great time scales and even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time. The "crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue. The same would be true of most other dense substances! Of course perhaps some chemical compound of uranium that is not so dense can help, but then we're still stuck with the issue of figuring out the mix of whatever exists on the surface in light of the density problem. Something doesn't add up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the best line
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Something doesn't add up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And anyway, how does Sal propose to tell if the "earth was molten at some time"

And has Sal not completely oversimplified things? In his model, the atmospheric gases would settle into layers for the same reason that the      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Something does not add up? It appears that thing is Sal's inability to use a search engine

< The Cosmic Origins of Uranium >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We might further ask how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred. Given

   * the present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various 'shells' forming our planet,
   * a knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes, and
   * the age of the Earth (c 4.55 billion years) - known from various radiometric 'clocks', including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains.

we can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.
This 'single stage' is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved. Additionally, studies of the isotopic abundances of elements, such as silicon and carbon in meteorites, have shown that more than ten separate stellar sources were involved in the genesis of solar system material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ten separate sources huh Sal? Can you model even begin to  explain the formation of uranium? Never mind where we find it in the crust...
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 14 2007,13:21

It's not Uranium Sal is concerned about it's Radium!

The Evil Evolutionist Conspriracy, has forced Timex to corner the market, to keep IDists and YECers from doing the vital experiments that will PROVE  their talking points, I mean theory.   And just like Sal, they take a licking and keep on ticking.

Unfortuantely.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Aug. 14 2007,14:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 14 2007,14:47

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 14 2007,14:06)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lord Kelvin, hero of YECs comes to our rescue!  :p

< http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi144.htm >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By now, Joseph Fourier had developed a theory of heat conduction. It was based on avant-garde mathematics that a lot of people couldn't accept. Then, in 1862, a British scientist, Lord Kelvin, used Fourier's theory to calculate the age of the earth. He knew the earth's temperature increased one degree Fahrenheit for each 50 feet you went into the ground. He guessed that the earth began as molten rock at 7000° F. By solving Fourier's equation, Kelvin found that it must have taken a hundred million years for the earth's temperature to level out to one degree every 50 feet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Emphasis by TPH.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 16 2007,07:30

<chortle> Sal thinks he's going to redefine cosmology


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If one thinks CDK is outrageous, consider the alternative. The Big Bang. Everything began from a region smaller than the point of pin. Further it requires Dark Matter to make it work.

This is what Dark Matter is Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories.
< http://www.space.com/science....-2.html >

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Aug. 16 2007,09:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.
Posted by: khan on Aug. 16 2007,14:27

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 16 2007,09:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever the spelling, that's an odd choice of a word.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 16 2007,14:46

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2007,05:30)
<chortle> Sal thinks he's going to redefine cosmology
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If one thinks CDK is outrageous, consider the alternative. The Big Bang. Everything began from a region smaller than the point of pin. Further it requires Dark Matter to make it work.

This is what Dark Matter is Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories.
< http://www.space.com/science....-2.html >

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meanwhile, in the real world, < actual science > is getting done on the subject.

There are things we don't know about dark matter.  The only logical conclusion is that it's all a load of nonsense and everything's 6,000 years old.  Isn't that right, Sal?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2007,15:02

JohnW, if dark matter is real, why isn't in mentioned in the bible?*



*Please note when its experimentally verified, we'll reinterpret the bible to include it.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 16 2007,15:29

Before light was created, all matter was dark matter... ;)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 21 2007,08:43

A link on YoungCosmos will take you to < this biography of Walt Brown, >which is apparently a chapter in a book about "Christian Men of Science". Some of the other chapters are devoted to Faraday, Maxwell, and that true champion of science, Henry Morris. No women, of course; maybe that is a separate book with a chapter on FtK.

Who knew that you could be a famous scientist while < refusing to publish in the peer-reviewed literature? >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 21 2007,09:11

yeah wes, especially when science journals "seldom publish a paper longer than six pages"

roflmao
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 22 2007,03:05

Mira Pzones Salvador!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!
< Linky >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2007,09:30

Sal Cordova: Provisionally Intermediate Earth Creationist.

:p
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 22 2007,11:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,17:30)
Sal Cordova: Provisionally Intermediate Earth Creationist.

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Young Cosmos should be re-named

Provisionally Adolescent Cosmos

(...with 40 year old's pimples).
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 22 2007,11:40

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2007,23:29)
Before light was created, all matter was dark matter... ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dark Matter may in fact be light matter, as in weight.

Near massless low energy neutrinos or something very similar just a f*ck of a lot of them.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 22 2007,13:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 22 2007,03:05)
Mira Pzones Salvador!
? ? ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

? ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!
< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think that Sal realizes that once he provisionally accepts 30,000 years, that this fact alone shows that Setterfield's idea is bunk, and hence the universe is 13 billion years old?

Of course not.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 23 2007,02:59

Just Say God Sal!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is possible the Miras were formed with a tail as well which had translational velocity to give it a glow (all though that would seem rather mischievous of the Designer to do so).

But that is all speculation at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You'll feel better!

mischievous = Loki?

< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 23 2007,10:52

Pretending to be Sal:

< Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth's crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday. >
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 23 2007,11:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2007,10:52)
Pretending to be Sal:

< Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth's crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like diamonds are NOT Sal's best friend.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 23 2007,20:05

Re "Looks like diamonds are NOT Sal's best friend. "

Why should they be - they're unstable in this environment. :p

Henry
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 23 2007,23:08

The designer created those diamonds on a Monday ( in the dark) and by Teusday the place was cool enough to ride around on dinosaurs.

Really I just wish those guys would run those silly ideas past Sal before rushing off to print, it would save so much time. Sal could just say "Nah, I'm going to moderate your ass" and that would be end of it.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 23 2007,23:27

< DT and Sal talking intelligently >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 26 2007,04:21

Sal's young cosmos is getting decidedly middle aged


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As we all know, the age of the universe directly correlates to the truthiness of "darwinism".

And Sal's pride is growing, could there be a fall! :)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So on the one hand Sal gets excited about a propaganda piece and on the other admits there is no evidence for his position!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 26 2007,04:36



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



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

Sal:
As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

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



So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BWHAhhahahahahahahaha

That means he's 15% atheist and probably Catholic.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 26 2007,05:16

Sal obviously finds it useful to keep up the pretense of "I only go where the evidence leads" even if his starting point is somewhat absurd.

If he keeps this up, he'll be believing in an old universe and the power of RM+NS in no time :)

I mean, if unimpeachable evidence was presented on his forum that he had to accept that the universe is much older then his current target of a couple a hundred million years, and if he adjusts his viewpoint accordingly then what's left of his "young cosmos" claims?

Of course, we know it's just a pretense so he can appeal to "the kids" and be seen to be "open minded" about where the evidence leads. No different from AFDave in that regard, except at least AFDave was honest about it from the beginning whereas Sal is hiding behind the skirts of the scientific method.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 27 2007,15:20

WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,15:22

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,15:20)
WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a little ticked at Ed.  It was me, after all, who first noted Sal's admission.  Yet do I get any credit?  Nope.  See < here >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 27 2007,15:27

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:22)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,15:20)
WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a little ticked at Ed. ?It was me, after all, who first noted Sal's admission. ?Yet do I get any credit? ?Nope. ?See < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you will..  ;)
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 31 2007,13:20

Latest post at Young Cosmos: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:23 pm.

Between Overwhelming Evidence and Young Cosmos, who will win for the least activity?  
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 31 2007,14:56

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 31 2007,13:20)
Latest post at Young Cosmos: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:23 pm.

Between Overwhelming Evidence and Young Cosmos, who will win for the least activity? ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Overwhelmingly Dense is perfectly designed to be just as tardariffic as Jung Homos, I mean Young Cosmos.

< >

I would suspect that most of Sal's posters would be a lot like Cosmo Kramer...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 31 2007,15:48

This post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much appreciated, Dr. Cheesman. No problem.

As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

It would be unethical not to make the YEC community aware of the difficulties you raise. This new phenomena is potentially fatal to the 6,000 version of YEC.

There is of course, for the sake of argument, a version of YEC which might not be in line with Genesis, but would put limits of say a few hundred million years. That may be empirically defensible even without, especally if the small universe hypothesis succeeds. I've been in touch with Robert Fritzius over the matter of futher inquiry into the small universe.

As I have stated I have far less indigestion over an alternate reading of Genesis than others here. And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.

There is plenty that troubles me over the mainstream models, not the least of whcih is the Big Bang. The YECs are not the only ones to object, but there is dissent from non-creationist quarters that is growing. The Big Bang theory could be overturned.

I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....b0f#762 >

It is painfully evident that Sal wants a 6 day creation not only to confirm the biblical account but also do disprove "Darwinism". His new stance seems to be picked simply so that the time-frame for evolution would be too short rather than for any scientific reason.


Can't.....let......evolution...be....true.


He's a deluded nutter. The end.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 31 2007,19:09

I love that 85% number.  My oldest son, when he was in second grade, loved to pull numbers out of his ass.  It's what kids do. He's going into fifth grade now, and he's gotten over that practice. Same cannot be said for Sal.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 31 2007,19:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How does he figure that? The only reason we think evolution took 4+ billion years is because geological dating indicates that, not because the theory implied it.

Henry
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 31 2007,19:30

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2007,19:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How does he figure that? The only reason we think evolution took 4+ billion years is because geological dating indicates that, not because the theory implied it.

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


Sal is also apparently too pig-ignorant to understand that the young earth was, uh, given up by geologists before Darwin was even born.  

By geologists who believed in the fixity of species.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 05 2007,16:36

Given the recent discussions of Sal and his notions on the FtK thread, I thought it was worthwhile to bump this thing back to the top just so that you can read Sal's opinions on the Guillermo Gonzalez affair. I won't link to the site, because only FtK can comment there, and because the post is pure Cordrivel as only Sal can excrete it, but one sentence is worth pointing out (my emphasis).  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let the reader judge for himself if the content of this video is deserving of the punishments received by Gonzalez.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earth (old) to Sal - A tenure denial is not punishment. It is one of two possible outcomes when you take a tenure-track job. Just like failing is one of two possible outcomes when you take a course on the pass/fail system. And, in both cases, the person being tested has a lot of control over what happens, if they are well-prepared and if they pay reasonable attention to the rules of the game.

Good luck in grad school, dude. You've got a lot to learn.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Dec. 14 2007,22:25

I still have posting privileges at Young Cosmos.  I never alienated Sal enough to get booted.  Anyway, I commented on his "I'm smarter than Darwin because I know more math" post, and he has responded with some sense that he's gone overboard.  See < here. >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 25 2007,08:43

< Sal > got an "A" in his introductory physics course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics]. Yay Sal! He also continues his comparison of Darwin vs Maxwell, and likes the word "dolt." In fact, Darwin is a "feeble brained dolt" compared to Maxwell and Riemann.

Keep that word "dolt" at hand as you read the following:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics.

I’m pleased to say, not one ounce of useless Darwinism was needed to comprehend the course material...

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations. Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only that, not one ounce of chemistry was needed to make that derivation. That's because chemistry isn't a science. Nor one ounce of geology, biology, paleontology, meteorology, ecology, astronomy, or cosmology. Those must not be sciences either. Nor information theory, metallurgy, minerology, psychology, cognitive science, sociology, political science, or anthropology...Jesus, Sal, you're a fucking genius.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth. I’d say Schrodinger’s and Maxwell’s equations are far more essential to the progress of science than any of Darwin’s unfounded speculations…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who has ever claimed that "Darwin's theory is the central theory of science?" [reference to orifice deleted]
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics] I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.
Posted by: celdd on Dec. 25 2007,09:10

To be fair, this is not an introductory course.  

from the John Hopkins website:  
 

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

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

Prerequisites & Notes
Prerequisite: Undergraduate degree in physics or engineering.


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



Still, this course has nothing to do with biology or evolution.  That Sal implies that his physics course has any direct relevance to evolutionary theory is absurd.
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 25 2007,09:10

YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 25 2007,09:12

A thing of beauty:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is an awful and disgusting lie.  It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Should come in handy in this thread, I think.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 25 2007,10:15

Quote (celdd @ Dec. 25 2007,10:10)
To be fair, this is not an introductory course.  

from the John Hopkins website:  
   

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

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

Prerequisites & Notes
Prerequisite: Undergraduate degree in physics or engineering.


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



Still, this course has nothing to do with biology or evolution.  That Sal implies that his physics course has any direct relevance to evolutionary theory is absurd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right.  

"We studied introductory material pertaining to special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics."

A distinction without a difference relative to Sal's argument.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 25 2007,11:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 25 2007,09:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least he recognizes that Young Earth Creationism is incompatible with the past 100+ years of physics.

That he thinks the physics must therefore be wrong is just kind of sad.
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 25 2007,12:12

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 25 2007,09:12)
A thing of beauty:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is an awful and disgusting lie.  It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Should come in handy in this thread, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.

"I wake up every day full of hope, positive that every day is going to be better than yesterday. And I'm looking to infect people with my positivity. I think I can start an epidemic."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can clearly tell the man loves his Hitler.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 25 2007,12:16

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 25 2007,09:43)
Sal said:

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maxwell's Equations led to Maxwell's Equations?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 25 2007,12:56

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will he be overturning evilution or turning over burgers?

Stay Tuned!
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 25 2007,13:49

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 25 2007,12:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You rang, m'lord?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 25 2007,13:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 25 2007,12:56)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will he be overturning evilution or turning over burgers?

Stay Tuned!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it is possible that the DI will want to sign Sal up for a cushy job bashing Darwinists once he has a degree. He certainly has a nose brown enough for that job application, if he wants it. He can be Luskin's apprentice.

Of course, it is also possible that the DI will have their funding decline to a trickle by the time Sal gets his degree. I can't imagine that the sponsors have been too happy with them lately. The DI fellows might have to get real jobs, give lectures at $10K per appearance, or sell books to keep the family fed. I don't think Sal has much talent in any of those areas, so it will be interesting to see where he ends up when the DI crashes. The stable of folks on the payroll seems pretty large, and pink slips might be on the way for some if the predicted Darwinist Waterloo doesn't happen pretty soon...
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 25 2007,14:04

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 25 2007,14:49)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 25 2007,12:16)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You rang, m'lord?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.

Here you go.


Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 25 2007,14:07

I just finished a bag of Doritos, actually. I'll have to save those for a rainy day.

Merry Christmas.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 25 2007,14:57

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 25 2007,15:07)
I just finished a bag of Doritos, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2007,18:53

Madeline Murry O'Hair deserved to be murdered, says Sal:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/151 >

(Linked from Pharyngula)

Edit: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not Madeline Murry O'Hair. Should have known better than to trust Sal's English, long known to be poor.


Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2007,20:28

Dembski and Behe have many followers, but I've only ever seen FtK commend Salvador. Can you guys think of anyone else who's consistently defended him? I can't think of any other supporters he has.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 26 2007,20:38

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2007,20:28)
Dembski and Behe have many followers, but I've only ever seen FtK commend Salvador. Can you guys think of anyone else who's consistently defended him? I can't think of any other supporters he has.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's okay, because he does it for Jesus. Plus, he lets a housewife contribute to his physics proving-god website.

They've clearly given up at the pretense of science now.

Edit? Yes!
Posted by: Chayanov on Dec. 26 2007,21:28

Apparently the "A" Sal got in physics means he's a rectum.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 26 2007,21:36

Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 26 2007,22:28)
Apparently the "A" Sal got in physics means he's a rectum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 26 2007,22:39

Another of Salvador's pustules has < erupted >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is much trouble in the world. For example, I mentioned this horrible crime committed against my family: Memorial to murder and rape victim, Connie Reyes. Why would such things happen? Why did Sean Taylor have to die? Or why would Darwin have to have deformed children after he inbred with his cousin?

The birth of Darwin’s deformed child caused him to have much resentment toward the idea of special creation. But the irony is that in the Darwinian world, deformed kids are only part of the evolutionary process of random mutation...That’s the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As the father of a daughter (now adult) born with a physical handicap, I'm here to say that it is the rectal prolapse that is Salvador Cordova's cerebral cortex that is "deformed."

But I'll also reproduce the following, which I wrote to a close friend following the birth of my daughter 21 years ago. To protect her privacy, and to honor Darwin's suffering, I'll change her name in what follows to "Mary Eleanor":

"I have always felt, deep in me, that there is no a-priori meaning for events like Mary Eleanor's prenatal injury. This event has required of me deep grieving and new loving, though has not altered, or even challenged, my universe-view, Einstein not withstanding. When friends gather around and say things like "everything happens for a reason, so God must have something in mind" I accept the consolation intended, though feel clearly, intuitively, unequivocally that this is comforting human fantasy. It is denial, in the same way that "grandpa is in heaven now and we'll be with him one day" denies the frightful mystery of life and death. If one really wishes to live intimately with the reality of human existence, than one must relinquish this kind of fantasy and accept the essentially random byplay that is a partner in all reality. Randomness is real. Mary Eleanor is wonderful. Grandpa isn't in a heaven. I am not bitter."
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 27 2007,08:15

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,22:39)
Another of Salvador's pustules has < erupted >:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually had convinced myself that Sal had hit bottom with his previous posts. Clearly I was wrong.

Stay tuned, indeed. How low can he go?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 27 2007,09:57

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 27 2007,08:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,22:39)
Another of Salvador's pustules has < erupted >:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually had convinced myself that Sal had hit bottom with his previous posts. Clearly I was wrong.

Stay tuned, indeed. How low can he go?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, FtK, come on, stick up for Sal!
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 27 2007,10:10

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I notice a bit of sarcasme in that? Or is it just my mind playing tricks on me?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 27 2007,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was a time when, not having taken part in long arguments at ARN and other forums, I did not understand why so many of my friends in the anti-creationist community held Sal Cordova in such low esteem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....cor.php >
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 27 2007,11:37

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,20:39)
But I'll also reproduce the following, which I wrote to a close friend following the birth of my daughter 21 years ago. To protect her privacy, and to honor Darwin's suffering, I'll change her name in what follows to "Mary Eleanor":

"I have always felt, deep in me, that there is no a-priori meaning for events like Mary Eleanor's prenatal injury. This event has required of me deep grieving and new loving, though has not altered, or even challenged, my universe-view, Einstein not withstanding. When friends gather around and say things like "everything happens for a reason, so God must have something in mind" I accept the consolation intended, though feel clearly, intuitively, unequivocally that this is comforting human fantasy. It is denial, in the same way that "grandpa is in heaven now and we'll be with him one day" denies the frightful mystery of life and death. If one really wishes to live intimately with the reality of human existence, than one must relinquish this kind of fantasy and accept the essentially random byplay that is a partner in all reality. Randomness is real. Mary Eleanor is wonderful. Grandpa isn't in a heaven. I am not bitter."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A reminder that there are reasons, beyond throwing pies at creationists, for coming to this board.  Thanks, Bill.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 27 2007,11:51

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 27 2007,11:37)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,20:39)
But I'll also reproduce the following, which I wrote to a close friend following the birth of my daughter 21 years ago. To protect her privacy, and to honor Darwin's suffering, I'll change her name in what follows to "Mary Eleanor":

"I have always felt, deep in me, that there is no a-priori meaning for events like Mary Eleanor's prenatal injury. This event has required of me deep grieving and new loving, though has not altered, or even challenged, my universe-view, Einstein not withstanding. When friends gather around and say things like "everything happens for a reason, so God must have something in mind" I accept the consolation intended, though feel clearly, intuitively, unequivocally that this is comforting human fantasy. It is denial, in the same way that "grandpa is in heaven now and we'll be with him one day" denies the frightful mystery of life and death. If one really wishes to live intimately with the reality of human existence, than one must relinquish this kind of fantasy and accept the essentially random byplay that is a partner in all reality. Randomness is real. Mary Eleanor is wonderful. Grandpa isn't in a heaven. I am not bitter."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A reminder that there are reasons, beyond throwing pies at creationists, for coming to this board.  Thanks, Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill is a gift to the world*. You should write more, Bill.

We'd like you to write more, Bill.


*All Gifts have givers QED Design.
Posted by: someotherguy on Dec. 27 2007,14:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,11:51)
We'd like you to write more, Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ramen.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 27 2007,15:24

Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 27 2007,15:29)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,11:51)
We'd like you to write more, Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ramen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, thank you fellers.

Let me just say that my noodles are made from enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, male enhanced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, lysergic acid), vegetable toil (contains one or more of the following: crayola, cottonseed, palm) preserved by TBHW, silt, spitassium carbonate, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, silt) sodium phosphate, sodium carbonate, turmeric. Soup base from spit, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed corn, wheat and sly protein, dehydrated vegetables (onion, garlic, jive), sugar, licktaste, spices, powdered choked chicken, cabbage insert, turmeric, disodium insinuate, and disodium guano.

(Did I mention salt? Sheesh.)
Posted by: someotherguy on Dec. 27 2007,15:29

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 27 2007,15:24)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 27 2007,15:29)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,11:51)
We'd like you to write more, Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ramen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, thank you fellers.

Let me just say that my noodles are made from enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, male enhanced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, lysergic acid), vegetable toil (contains one or more of the following: crayola, cottonseed, palm) preserved by TBHW, silt, spitassium carbonate, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, silt) sodium phosphate, sodium carbonate, turmeric. Soup base from spit, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed corn, wheat and sly protein, dehydrated vegetables (onion, garlic, jive), sugar, licktaste, spices, powdered choked chicken, cabbage insert, turmeric, disodium insinuate, and disodium guano.

(Did I mention salt? Sheesh.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Licktaste?  Licktaste?  Well, sheeeeiiittt!  I take back my laudatory comment!

Edit:  for legit grammatical reason (yeah, right!)
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 27 2007,16:41

Sal appears to be a very sick man indeed.  His whole reason for being such an IDiot creationist seems to be motivated by a need to prove the bible is true and can be relied upon.  

What hell it must be to be a grown man who is so afraid of facing life standing on his own two feet that he needs magic to face it, and then spends his life trying to prove the magic is real to himself and others.

This is the hell hole of faith.  Every believer doubts at some level, this is why they hate those of us who doubt out loud.

Sal is a vile man.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 27 2007,17:38

In Sal's latest (I thought he was going to shut up for a while during his time in grad school??), he shows his extremely pathetic understanding of a theory that he rejects, and throws in an ad hominem slap just for good measure.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I reject Darwinism because it’s a stupid theory written by a stupid pretender. Fish do not turn into birds, and birds don’t turn into cows and nor cows into whales via mechanism we see in operation today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Nuff said.

< Link. >
Posted by: bystander on Dec. 27 2007,17:42

I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 27 2007,17:49

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 27 2007,17:42)
I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. He's. That. Stupid.

Here's more.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, according to Darwin, the fittest survive. Does that mean rapists and murderers are more fit adaptations? Recently a creationist murdered a Darwinist. Does that mean that a murdering creationist is more fit than the Darwinist? I don’t think so. Shame on that dirt bag murderer for disgracing us creationists. But still, the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory that according to Darwin’s theory, that creationist is a more fit adaptation than the Darwinist he murdered. Not only is Darwin’s theory scientifically wrong it is morally reprehensible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 27 2007,18:00

Sal is unemployable. I'm sure he can't wait to cry "persecution".
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 27 2007,21:15

Sal's been hyperactively dumb lately.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 27 2007,21:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 27 2007,16:49)
 
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 27 2007,17:42)
I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. He's. That. Stupid.

Here's more.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, according to Darwin, the fittest survive. Does that mean rapists and murderers are more fit adaptations? Recently a creationist murdered a Darwinist. Does that mean that a murdering creationist is more fit than the Darwinist? I don’t think so. Shame on that dirt bag murderer for disgracing us creationists. But still, the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory that according to Darwin’s theory, that creationist is a more fit adaptation than the Darwinist he murdered. Not only is Darwin’s theory scientifically wrong it is morally reprehensible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Oh, yeah?

Didn't he just say that < evil makes life more interesting >?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would we be interested in sporting matches where there were no losers? Would we rush to watch a Huxlian Utopia League with no losers and all participants are superbowl champions? I have no answers as to why we find worlds where there is a possibility of losers and winners more compelling, and dare I say more real and beautiful, than world where all troubles sanitized away, and the heroes have no chance of experiencing adversity and pain.

Would we expect a great screen writer or a great novelist to write a work where there were no problems or villains? Would we expect a composer to write great works of music with no dissonance. If he doesn’t, one will be stuck with a monotoned sine-wave. Not very beautiful or compelling.

Thus if we would expect a great novelist on the Earth to create a world full of villains, winners and losers, is it not reasonable to think the Great Novelist in the Sky to do the same. It is possible he would create a world, a story line where there are heroes and villains. A world without such drama is like Star Wars without Darth Vader. It seems a rather strange property of reality that great good and beauty are realized with the possibility of evil and loss. We may not like it, but it seems that like the laws of thermodynamics dictate, things must come at a cost, and everything of any worth must come at a great price.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Spot the contradiction in five, four, three, two...

Darwinists give meaning to the creationists' lives! So why don't they shut up already about how "mean" "we" are? It's all part of God's Plan! :D

If "we" Darth-winists didn't pick on Guillermo Gonzalez, etc., life would be boring! Etc.! :)

Now "we" have an excuse for everything! Thanks, Sal!

*edited to include "Darth-winists"*
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 27 2007,21:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 27 2007,18:49)
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 27 2007,17:42)
I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. He's. That. Stupid.

Here's more.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, according to Darwin, the fittest survive. Does that mean rapists and murderers are more fit adaptations? Recently a creationist murdered a Darwinist. Does that mean that a murdering creationist is more fit than the Darwinist? I don’t think so. Shame on that dirt bag murderer for disgracing us creationists. But still, the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory that according to Darwin’s theory, that creationist is a more fit adaptation than the Darwinist he murdered. Not only is Darwin’s theory scientifically wrong it is morally reprehensible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Is Salvador really so stupid that he confuses what is with what should be?

We could just ask him, but since he's on a creationist blog he would probably delete the question.
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 27 2007,22:43

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 27 2007,21:46)
Is Salvador really so stupid that he confuses what is with what should be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Almost all creationists are.

For that matter, this particular fallacy seems to be, well, one of the most natural ways of thinking. "Is" and "ought" often do not seem to be intuitively separate.

ETA: Further, Sal's version of God would probably like Hitler more than Jesus. Jesus was, at the end of the day, a religious leader who got executed. Hitler staged a human drama of vast and amazing scope, so great that his name has become synonymous with evil. It's not hard to choose which one God, being a novelist with a flair of the dramatic and macabre, would rather let into heaven.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Dec. 28 2007,00:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Salvador really so stupid that he confuses what is with what should be?

We could just ask him, but since he's on a creationist blog he would probably delete the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he wouldn't.  It wouldn't even make it to the delete button - you have to be invited onto the blog to be able to comment.

Bob
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 28 2007,11:41

Sal is enamored with his current gig at Johns Hopkins University and some of the faculty there, whom he apparently < regards as ID proponents. >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unlike Baylor, the ID controversy is not very prominent at Johns Hopkins. Thanks be to the Intelligent Designer for that. As a result, various ID proponents and ID sympathizers have been a part of this wonderful institution.

The foremost name from my school would probably Christian Anfinsen from the Department of Biology. Anfinsen won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1972 “for his work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation.” Anfinsen is one of seven Nobel Prize Winners from Johns Hopkins.

Anfinsen wrote an ensorsement for the book Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution written by his fellow Johns Hopkins professor, bio-physicist Lee Spetner. He wrote of Spetner’s ID work:

   …extremely thorough and compelling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That latter blurb is from the book jacket of Spetner's book; I'd love to read the rest of the review, but am unable to find it anywhere.

Nevertheless, Sal should also know that Anfinsen was one of the signatories of an < amicus curiae brief > submitted by Nobel Prize winners on the correct side of the case in Edwards v. Aguillard. That brief is of more than usual historical significance, as documented < here > in an article in Science, Technology and Human Values. Anfinsen was also the author of a classic (1959) biochemistry tome entitled The Molecular Basis of Evolution which I read as an undergrad.  Since Anfinsen died in 1995, he is not around to defend his reputation, but I sincerely doubt that he would be a friend of Sal's, or a supporter of ID...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 28 2007,11:47

< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

It seems to me that everything in life centers around our choices, and we certainly learn the most important life lessons from mistakes we’ve made or the evil we’ve encountered. And, as you pointed out, how would we appreciate the good, if evil didn’t exist? I could go on and on about this and probably will in a post sometime soon since you have me thinking about it again.

The problem with this subject is that, in the end, we’ll never know for sure what God’s ultimate reasoning was for why and how he created the universe until we reach those pearly gates. But, then again, if we knew everything, life would be unbelievably boring. I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


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


Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 28 2007,11:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,11:47)
< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


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


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


Well for goodness sake, she can < talk to God > right now.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 28 2007,12:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,11:47)
< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

It seems to me that everything in life centers around our choices, and we certainly learn the most important life lessons from mistakes we’ve made or the evil we’ve encountered. And, as you pointed out, how would we appreciate the good, if evil didn’t exist? I could go on and on about this and probably will in a post sometime soon since you have me thinking about it again.

The problem with this subject is that, in the end, we’ll never know for sure what God’s ultimate reasoning was for why and how he created the universe until we reach those pearly gates. But, then again, if we knew everything, life would be unbelievably boring. I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


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


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


FtK's conversation with god might go something like < this >.


Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 28 2007,12:25

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,12:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,11:47)
< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

It seems to me that everything in life centers around our choices, and we certainly learn the most important life lessons from mistakes we’ve made or the evil we’ve encountered. And, as you pointed out, how would we appreciate the good, if evil didn’t exist? I could go on and on about this and probably will in a post sometime soon since you have me thinking about it again.

The problem with this subject is that, in the end, we’ll never know for sure what God’s ultimate reasoning was for why and how he created the universe until we reach those pearly gates. But, then again, if we knew everything, life would be unbelievably boring. I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


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


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


FtK's conversation with god might go something like < this >.


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


Bill, Dave, and a few others of you who still display an iota of sense every once in a while, please note that this post is simliar to what Sal was doing.  Taking things out of context and twisting them endlessly in order to try to make a point.

It's used as merely a means of provocation or to try to untactfully make a point (if understood as the writer intended).  I don't agree with the method and rarely use it unless provoked to the point of no return.  Then, after thinking better of it, I have to go back and apologize...hate that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 28 2007,12:29

Which bits do you think are twisted in the cartoon, FtK?


God should be taller, obviously.
Posted by: Rob on Dec. 28 2007,12:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,18:00)
Sal is unemployable. I'm sure he can't wait to cry "persecution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's already < started >.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 28 2007,12:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

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



So, god allows hitler to do his thing to make life more interesting.  As a parent i find this sort of rationalization highly disturbing and even more disturbing is the parent not only allows their child to hold this sick view but encourages it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 28 2007,12:34

Anfinsen displayed his antipathy to evolutionary theory, and particularly common ancestry, here:

a-Amylase from the Hyperthermophilic Archaebacterium
Pyrococcus furiosus

CLONING AND SEQUENCING OF THE GENE AND EXPRESSION IN ESCHERICHIA COLI

Kenneth A. Ladermant, K. Asadap, T. UemoriQ, H. Mukait, Y. TaguchiQ, I. Katot, and Christian B. Anfinsen

[from the summary on page 24407]

...Perhaps the most interesting facet of this research are the  evolutionary implications of the sequence homology between the a-amylases of P. furiosu-s and D. thermophilum. Based on molecular phylogeny using rRNA sequences, existing organisms are seen to fall into three coherent groups eukaryotes, eubacteria, and archaebacteria (Fox et al., 1980). Substantial physiological and structural differences exist between archaebacteria and eubacteria, which is evidence of their deep evolutionary separation (Woese, 1985). The phylogenetic tree prepared by Pace et al. (1986) places archaebacteria closer to the common ancestor of all the kingdoms than one or both of the other primary kingdoms, suggesting that archaebacteria are more primitive than one or both of the other lines. D.  thermophilum is a Gram-negative, obligately anaerobic, extremely thermophilic bacterium (Saiki et al., 1985). It shares with P. furiosus a low G + C content and a tolerance for extreme thermal conditions, but is a member of a different  phylogenetic kingdom. D. thermophilum has been shown to  produce three different species of cuamylase, which can be  classified into two separate classes. First, amylase A, which displays a high degree of homology with the P. furiosus aamylase, and second, amylase B and amylase C, which display  homology with Takaamylase A (Toda et al., 1982). No significant homology exists between these two classes, suggesting that they represent two independent gene families or a single family which diverged at a point so distant that no feature save enzyme activity remains as evidence of their relationship. It is possible, since archaebacteria are considered to represent a primitive kingdom, that the P. furiosus cYamylase, and therefore the D. thermophilum amylase A, may be an example of an archaic form of the enzyme which is well suited to extreme temperatures. In contrast, the D. thermophilum amylases B and C contain regions known to be well conserved in several Bacillus species, hog, mouse, and human amylases (Fukusumi et al., 1988), and they represent the common form of the enzyme, various examples of which are active over a wide range of temperatures.

(The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 268, No. 32, Issue of November 15, pp. 24402-24407, 1993)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 28 2007,12:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,13:29)
Which bits do you think are twisted in the cartoon, FtK?


God should be taller, obviously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty sure Ftk has arms. Plus they way she tells it, it's gonna be Ftk driving God nuts with the questions, not the reverse. (He'll attempt patient explanations for awhile, but then...)

So this IS twisted.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 28 2007,13:35

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,12:25)
Bill, Dave, and a few others of you who still display an iota of sense every once in a while, please note that this post is simliar to what Sal was doing.  Taking things out of context and twisting them endlessly in order to try to make a point.

It's used as merely a means of provocation or to try to untactfully make a point (if understood as the writer intended).  I don't agree with the method and rarely use it unless provoked to the point of no return.  Then, after thinking better of it, I have to go back and apologize...hate that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK, like it or not, you are a living caricature of everything that's wrong about religion in general and creationism in particular.  You've been good enough to buttress that contention by avoiding the issues raised by your comments about conversations with god and that particular comic strip, and just wah-wahing about "provocation."

If your god exists, you might have some uncomfortable questions to answer about biblical exegesis and hypocrisy, for starters.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Dec. 29 2007,14:24

Sal:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I reject Darwinism because it’s a stupid theory written by a stupid pretender. Fish do not turn into birds, and birds don’t turn into cows and nor cows into whales via mechanism we see in operation today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whoa! A Finnish creationist got that very same "argument" printed in an opinion piece in a newspaper today. It is filled with the usual garbage: no transitional fossils, naturalism limits science, etc. I'm currently writing a reply to it, as I've done several times before.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 29 2007,20:03

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2007,18:53)
Madeline Murry O'Hair deserved to be murdered, says Sal:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/151 >

(Linked from Pharyngula)

Edit: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not Madeline Murry O'Hair. Should have known better than to trust Sal's English, long known to be poor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


was jesus punished by god too?  his death was pretty cruel, at least if you believe the christian snuff film produced by mel gibson.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 29 2007,20:06

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:29)
Which bits do you think are twisted in the cartoon, FtK?


God should be taller, obviously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And He should lose the beard. He looks like a goddamn hippie.  :angry:
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 29 2007,20:11

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,12:25)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,12:00)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,11:47)
< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691 >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

It seems to me that everything in life centers around our choices, and we certainly learn the most important life lessons from mistakes we’ve made or the evil we’ve encountered. And, as you pointed out, how would we appreciate the good, if evil didn’t exist? I could go on and on about this and probably will in a post sometime soon since you have me thinking about it again.

The problem with this subject is that, in the end, we’ll never know for sure what God’s ultimate reasoning was for why and how he created the universe until we reach those pearly gates. But, then again, if we knew everything, life would be unbelievably boring. I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


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


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


FtK's conversation with god might go something like < this >.


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


Bill, Dave, and a few others of you who still display an iota of sense every once in a while, please note that this post is simliar to what Sal was doing.  Taking things out of context and twisting them endlessly in order to try to make a point.

It's used as merely a means of provocation or to try to untactfully make a point (if understood as the writer intended).  I don't agree with the method and rarely use it unless provoked to the point of no return.  Then, after thinking better of it, I have to go back and apologize...hate that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys are taking this totally out of context! You're worse than Sal!
:angry:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

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



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

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


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 29 2007,20:15

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 29 2007,20:03)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2007,18:53)
Madeline Murry O'Hair deserved to be murdered, says Sal:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/151 >

(Linked from Pharyngula)

Edit: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not Madeline Murry O'Hair. Should have known better than to trust Sal's English, long known to be poor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


was jesus punished by god too?  his death was pretty cruel, at least if you believe the christian snuff film produced by mel gibson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why did the Disembodied Frontloading Entity punish O'Hair with a cruel death but allowed Stalin and Mao to live long, destructive lives, uninterrupted?*

Oh yes, I forgot: cuz it's interesting.

I guess where O'Hair screwed up is that she was boring.

(*Also, I can't help but notice that Little Old Adolf died by his own hand at 56.)
Posted by: rhmc on Dec. 29 2007,20:24

thanks for the "russells teapot".   what a hoot.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 30 2007,10:41

Sal explains, half-jokingly, that young-universe apologetics is the < Chewbacca defense >, a fictional legal strategy used in the South Park episode "Chef Aid".  The aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury.  

< I am not making it up >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seriously think YEC has a chance, but I used the term "Chewbacca Defense of YEC" to humorously describe the process of defending YEC by criticizing the Big Bang since such a line of argumentation is a bit unsporting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 30 2007,14:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,18:00)
Sal is unemployable. I'm sure he can't wait to cry "persecution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't imagine what Sal thinks he's accomplishing. It's like he's made a conscious decision to never be taken seriously by anyone again, and he's deliberately settling into some gross parody of a YEC'er. All I can figure is that he wants to be Guillermo Gonzalez or Richard Sternberg when he grows up. Score your 'martyrdom' credentials, then settle into a cozy sinecure with the DI.

Can't help but wonder what his MA or PhD committees will think of his street theater. I suspect they'll take a dimmer view of it than he realizes.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 30 2007,14:32

Since he is an expert in misrepresentation, he may be able to fool a committee long enough to jump through a few hoops.  The question is who would want to be associated with such a student?  I wouldn't.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 30 2007,15:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 30 2007,13:20)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,18:00)
Sal is unemployable. I'm sure he can't wait to cry "persecution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't imagine what Sal thinks he's accomplishing. It's like he's made a conscious decision to never be taken seriously by anyone again, and he's deliberately settling into some gross parody of a YEC'er. All I can figure is that he wants to be Guillermo Gonzalez or Richard Sternberg when he grows up. Score your 'martyrdom' credentials, then settle into a cozy sinecure with the DI.

Can't help but wonder what his MA of PhD committees will think of his street theater. I suspect they'll take a dimmer view of it than he realizes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just watched The Crucible (Daniel Day-Lewis version) and I don't know why this did not occur to me before, since I long ago conducted research about the Salem Witch Trials, including reading the trial transcripts, but Sal's special pleading for design sounds exactly like the "invisible crime/invisible evidence" argument for witchcraft employed at that time. The learned judges (lawyers, again) who condemned innocent people to die also did not have to match the "pathetic level of detail" required of more worldly crimes.

However, the largely untold story of the Salem Witch Trials is how the judges ultimately became trapped in their own pseudoevidence, and ruined their own reputations, and could not escape their own specially formulated due process even when they grew sick of their own power. Aside from the executions, the jails filled; orphans proliferated; farms fell to ruin, all because people had good intentions about leading a village "back to God."

This is a form of hysteria. Sal and the others are caught up in it, but this is different in that they have not only cast themselves in the role of the victims but in that of the judges, too. And as there were people who exploited the witch trials, accusing neighbors whose land they coveted or in retaliation for a long-standing grudge, so a vein of opportunism runs through the motives of Sal, Dembski, et al. It is as if this gaggle of IDists are playing most of the roles in Arthur Miller's play. I wonder who they would hang, if they could - but they're really hanging themselves, on their own ropes, aren't they!

I can't adequately express the sense of weirdness that I got watching this play (after not seeing or reading it for so long), and hearing familiar sentiments from the characters - accusers, judges, and villagers - that Sal and his colleagues are saying now.
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 30 2007,15:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aside from the executions, the jails filled; orphans proliferated; farms fell to ruin, all because people had good intentions about leading a village "back to God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard it lots of times, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 01 2008,23:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Salvador really so stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Obviously,when you compare his post titles

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A YEC student gets an A in a JHU physics course :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“A” stands for rectum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,11:12

Sal continues to find ways to < go ever lower > in his quest to prove that he, and he alone, holds claim to the title of "most disgusting creationist".

And this one has a most interesting postscript    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HT: FtK
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll leave it to the physicists to dissect his other < post from today >, but I did find this quote amusing    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I commend the valor of those who conceived of the Big Bang theory. I have even gone so far to say it is a creationist-friendly theory if one is willing to have a not-so-literal reading of Genesis or if one is willing to invoke the fact time flows differently in different contexts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,12:04

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,11:12)
Sal continues to find ways to < go ever lower > in his quest to prove that he, and he alone, holds claim to the title of "most disgusting creationist".

And this one has a most interesting postscript    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HT: FtK
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll leave it to the physicists to dissect his other < post from today >, but I did find this quote amusing    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I commend the valor of those who conceived of the Big Bang theory. I have even gone so far to say it is a creationist-friendly theory if one is willing to have a not-so-literal reading of Genesis or if one is willing to invoke the fact time flows differently in different contexts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....

(sorry Assi, I swear I'll get to you by the end of the day.)
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,12:12

I'll take Missing The Point for five hundred, Alex.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,12:15

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,12:12)
I'll take Missing The Point for five hundred, Alex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then *you* explain the point I'm missing.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,12:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:15)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,12:12)
I'll take Missing The Point for five hundred, Alex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then *you* explain the point I'm missing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a little busy and you'll probably ignore any explanation too detailed to caricature anyway.

ETA: Also if I wait five minutes Albatrossity will do it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,12:23

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:04)
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's quote-mining. See the < entire post > from which Sal quotes, and note that he does not give a link to that post. Perhaps that is because it starts out with this    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet Sal's post implies that she would have a collared peccary as a fiance.

2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.

Sal is disgusting because he is a liar (quote-mining is lying) and because he feels that 16 yr old girls are fair game for "proving" his fantasies about atheists/darwinists/evilutionists. Read that again.  Sal is disgusting. Please quit trying to switch the conversation to a discussion of why (or if) bestiality is disgusting.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,12:25

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,12:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:15)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,12:12)
I'll take Missing The Point for five hundred, Alex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then *you* explain the point I'm missing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a little busy and you'll probably ignore any explanation too detailed to caricature anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or refuse to discuss any response in any detail. Same difference.

Or just point to a link and claim it refutes the point at hand without explaining why.

Or any of the other 1000 creationist tricks FTK has used to avoid engaging on the substantial points of any issue.

Odd, how when you get to specifics of why evilution is wrong and creationism is right FTK just stops posting. Must be co-incidence.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,12:34

It's no coincidence, it's just old and boring because she's like already refuted those arguments so many times.  Like < here > and < here > and .< here >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,12:56

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,12:23)
2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What people like Sal and FTK are afraid to do is to take the experts on in the universally* accepted field of battle. They can't even acknowledge when they are wrong (E.G FTK could simply say "I was in error when noting that Walt has submitted his work for peer review") as if they can be wrong about one thing, the whole edifice built by cognitive dissonance could be in danger. I think :p

16 year old bloggers must therefore seem like tempting targets.

FTK, you and Sal get some major ownage on the crank index btw
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  A -5 point starting credit.

# 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

# 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

# 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

# 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html >

I mean, check some of the others out, Sal is just racking up the points!    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

# 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

# 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

# 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*depends on your score on the crank chart.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,12:23)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:04)
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....

(sorry Assi, I swear I'll get to you by the end of the day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's quote-mining. See the < entire post > from which Sal quotes, and note that he does not give a link to that post. Perhaps that is because it starts out with this      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet Sal's post implies that she would have a collared peccary as a fiance.

2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.

Sal is disgusting because he is a liar (quote-mining is lying) and because he feels that 16 yr old girls are fair game for "proving" his fantasies about atheists/darwinists/evilutionists. Read that again.  Sal is disgusting. Please quit trying to switch the conversation to a discussion of why (or if) bestiality is disgusting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,

1.  Sal HT'd me...so that's not quote mining.  I linked to Skatje's *entire* post.  I'll make sure that where he HT'd me the link is accessible for those who don't read the post right before his.

2.  It doesn't matter if Skatje wants to hump animals or not.  The point is that it is completely moral to do so.  

3.  Sal implying that "she would have a collared peccary as a fiance" is humor meant to drive the point home.  For the record, this is not the type of humor I advocate. But, it is interesting to note that your outrage is only displayed when you feel someone from my side has stepped over the line in this way.  For instance, Erasamus's post yesterday was just as outrageous, yet not word from you on that one...interesting.

He wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

The moments between the first greeting between King David and Johnathan, and the time required for David to reach a full, complete erection.

The number of times Joseph wondered just who in the hell his betrothed wife had been slipping around with.

How many calluses must have been on the palm of Jesus, the virgin haploid redeemer of mankind.  Alternatively, did he never masturbate?  Did Jesus sometimes consider breaking his own rules so that he might relieve a little pressure?  If he didn't, can we say that he is truly human?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evidently RB (Reciprocating Bill?) helped him with that one and has no problem with it either.

The hypocrisy is rampant at this site.

The fact that Skatje is 17 is irrelevant.  She is an extremely intelligent woman who has put a LOT of thought into these matters.  She's in college and has probably given more thought to these issues than most adults.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:07

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:02)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,12:23)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:04)
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....

(sorry Assi, I swear I'll get to you by the end of the day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's quote-mining. See the < entire post > from which Sal quotes, and note that he does not give a link to that post. Perhaps that is because it starts out with this      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet Sal's post implies that she would have a collared peccary as a fiance.

2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.

Sal is disgusting because he is a liar (quote-mining is lying) and because he feels that 16 yr old girls are fair game for "proving" his fantasies about atheists/darwinists/evilutionists. Read that again.  Sal is disgusting. Please quit trying to switch the conversation to a discussion of why (or if) bestiality is disgusting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,

1.  Sal HT'd me...so that's not quote mining.  I linked to Skatje's *entire* post.  I'll make sure that where he HT'd me the link is accessible for those who don't read the post right before his.

2.  It doesn't matter if Skatje wants to hump animals or not.  The point is that it is completely moral to do so.  

3.  Sal implying that "she would have a collared peccary as a fiance" is humor meant to drive the point home.  For the record, this is not the type of humor I advocate. But, it is interesting to note that your outrage is only displayed when you feel someone from my side has stepped over the line in this way.  For instance, Erasamus's post yesterday was just as outrageous, yet not word from you on that one...interesting.

He wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

The moments between the first greeting between King David and Johnathan, and the time required for David to reach a full, complete erection.

The number of times Joseph wondered just who in the hell his betrothed wife had been slipping around with.

How many calluses must have been on the palm of Jesus, the virgin haploid redeemer of mankind.  Alternatively, did he never masturbate?  Did Jesus sometimes consider breaking his own rules so that he might relieve a little pressure?  If he didn't, can we say that he is truly human?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evidently RB (Reciprocating Bill?) helped him with that one and has no problem with it either.

The hypocrisy is rampant at this site.

The fact that Skatje is 17 is irrelevant.  She is an extremely intelligent woman who has put a LOT of thought into these matters.  She's in college and has probably given more thought to these issues than most adults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,13:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:07)
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, what are your kids names and where are their blogs?
It only makes sense to consider the morals of your followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like with religion.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,13:19

So, all of the following are true:

1) You don't condone Sal's actions.
2) You will defend Sal and argue points on his behalf.
3) You don't think anyone can criticize Sal fairly 'cause Erasmus is a jerk and nobody criticized him.

Is this correct? Because you've posted all of this.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 02 2008,13:21

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:07)
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Full of extremely intelligent women who put a great deal of thought into matters that escape most adults? Absent smegma like Sal?

I'm liking it. Say more.

(Waits while Fkt looks up "smegma.")
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,13:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:07)
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, what are your kids names and where are their blogs?
It only makes sense to consider the morals of your followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like with religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OM, Skatje and PZ are very vocal in this debate.  They are out there for all the world to see, and they *want* their views heard by all in the public square.  I have every right to read and consider their views.

My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.  Neither do they want to stop atheists from having a voice or treat them like dirt.  I hope that attitude never changes.  I want them to treat people with respect regardless as to whether they vehemently disagree with them or not.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,13:30

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,13:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:07)
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, what are your kids names and where are their blogs?
It only makes sense to consider the morals of your followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like with religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OM, Skatje and PZ are very vocal in this debate.  They are out there for all the world to see, and they *want* their views heard by all in the public square.  I have every right to read and consider their views.

My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.  Neither do they want to stop atheists from having a voice or treat them like dirt.  I hope that attitude never changes.  I want them to treat people with respect regardless as to whether they vehemently disagree with them or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then treat the people here with some respect and don't refuse to acknowledge something that refutes a point you've previously made.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have every right to read and consider their views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal does something quite different.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,13:32

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:02)
Dave,

1.  Sal HT'd me...so that's not quote mining.  I linked to Skatje's *entire* post.  I'll make sure that where he HT'd me the link is accessible for those who don't read the post right before his.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does his nod in your direction have to do with what I documented in my last post? He quoted something, did not link to the entire post, and implied that the extracted quote meant something that was directly contradicted if you could read the entire post. That is the very definition of quote-mining, and whether or not you provided him with the link is completely irrelevant. What part of that seems so hard to understand? Sal quote-mined. Quote-mining is lying. Are you OK with that?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  It doesn't matter if Skatje wants to hump animals or not.  The point is that it is completely moral to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, if you read that post not linked by Sal (and apparently not read or understood by you) you will not find the word "moral". You will find the word "legal". There is a difference, unless you live in a theocracy. She did NOT say that it is "completely moral" to do so. You are putting words in her mouth, and that is lying as well.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  Sal implying that "she would have a collared peccary as a fiance" is humor meant to drive the point home.  For the record, this is not the type of humor I advocate. But, it is interesting to note that your outrage is only displayed when you feel someone from my side has stepped over the line in this way.  For instance, Erasamus's post yesterday was just as outrageous, yet not word from you on that one...interesting....extraneous stuff snipped...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, two wrongs make a right. FYI, I didn't see Erasmus' post from yesterday, so your assumptions about my lack of outrage are, per usual, unsupported by evidence. Quit trying to deflect the focus from Sal's obnoxious behavior; that's what we are talking about, and that is what you apparently are defending. Quote-mining. Lies. Innuendo about bestiality on the part of a teen-age girl.  What possible good can come from defending stuff like that?  The fact that I don't express outrage at something I didn't read is inconsequential compared to your active defense of Sal's lies, disguised as "humor". Focus on that, please.

And I won't even touch the argument that she deserves it because of your disagreements with her father. How absurd. Only someone who accepted the concept of original sin could find that argument compelling. I don't. If you or Sal have issues with PZ, how about tackling those issues directly, rather than lying about his daughter?  ERV's characterization of Sal is beginning to look more and more mild all the time.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,13:33

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:02)
The hypocrisy is rampant at this site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,
has it ever occurred to you that the people here are in the main not representatives of the religion you call darwinism? ATBC for petes sake.

Yet you and Sal and Dr Dr Dr Dembski are the public face and representatives of Intelligent Design Creationism?

99.99999999999999999999% of creationists have not heard of this site. Or if they have, they are certainly very shy about saying hello! But I'll be a much larger chunk have heard about you and Sal and Dr "farty" Dembski.

So even if hypocrisy was rampant at this site, it's not doing that library full of books about evilution any harm. Are you persuading the lurkers? Don't you ever wonder that FTK?
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,13:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about there own children then? How is that moral?

Aside from the other morality and general questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) You don't condone Sal's actions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't condone his choice of humor, and I said so in my post at YC.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You will defend Sal and argue points on his behalf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I will argue his points minus his lack of tact because he has a *good* point that he could have articulated in a more respectful way.  He's fed up with the lot of you, and is apparently dead set on making a point of that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't think anyone can criticize Sal fairly 'cause Erasmus is a jerk and nobody criticized him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, on the contrary.  You have every right to criticize Sal's delivery as long as you address the point as well.  And, if you are going to criticize his lack of tact, then you should speak up when your side is acting in the same manner.  I was told that what Sal wrote is far worse than anything one can find at this site, and that is far, far from the truth.  It only feels that way because it's aimed at you rather than those damn "creationists" who you feel deserve it.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:41

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about there own children then? How is that moral?

Aside from the other morality and general questions questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.  It's not even possible to have children and not influence them to some degree.

I've mentioned numerous times that I don't support Sal's choice in how he made his point.  I do agree that he has a point, albeit lost due to his choice of delivery.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,13:43

We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:54

Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!

How is that quote mining?!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,13:59

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:43)
We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you think you're parents have not influenced you on matter of religion and other issues, then you're pretty naive.  A lack of involvement and education on the subject of religion can also be of influence to a child.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,14:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54)
Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!

How is that quote mining?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep on digging FTK!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Skatje > Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn’t actually matter to me. You’re right. There’s no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she’s against bestiality, there’s been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I’m just arguing a rational stance and I’m not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,14:09

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,13:21)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:07)
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Full of extremely intelligent women who put a great deal of thought into matters that escape most adults? Absent smegma like Sal?

I'm liking it. Say more.

(Waits while Fkt looks up "smegma.")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really uncalled for, Bill.  But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.  How does that hit ya?  

Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans.

Pot, meet kettle...
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,14:10

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:59)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:43)
We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you think you're parents have not influenced you on matter of religion and other issues, then you're pretty naive.  A lack of involvement and education on the subject of religion can also be of influence to a child.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O I was involved, my grandma is christian and I went to an evangelical youthclub all by myself (it was fun). My parents had nothing to do with it, I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,14:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,14:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54)
Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!

How is that quote mining?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep on digging FTK!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Skatje > Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn’t actually matter to me. You’re right. There’s no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she’s against bestiality, there’s been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I’m just arguing a rational stance and I’m not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


? You're point?  How does that negate the fact that she condones the act?  She thinks it's A-okay to have relations with animals.  So what if she says she doesn't enjoy it personally.  That's not even the point.  You believe homosexuality is A-okay, yet you probably aren't participating in the act.  Same thing.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,14:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really uncalled for, Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt FTK had to look it up.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on the target audience I suppose.  And anyway, would "category" be like "kind" by any chance?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  How does that hit ya?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like a 6000 year old earth.
 

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

Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pah. A "rude" word that in fact has an accepted definition and is just a word compares to Sal's behaviour?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pot, meet kettle...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See the avatar. Meet pot.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,14:18

If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,14:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Honey, the fact that they never discussed the issue of religion with you is influential in and of itself.  Parents make a point of talking with their children about things they hold dear or that they think are important.  The fact that you've never heard word one from them about religious matters tells you that it's simply not important to them.  That is influential to a child.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,14:24

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54)
Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!

How is that quote mining?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's quote-mining because of what you left out (egad, you are quote-mining Sal!).  He then wrote    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m refraining commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post, but human animal sex just sounds plain icky, ICKY with a capital “I”. Imagine you are the proud parent of a young lady, and then she introduces you to her prospective fiance, the “man” she wants as her husband:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

followed by a picture of a collared peccary.

Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Parse it however you want, and try to fit it into your definition of good Christian behavior, but to everyone else on the planet, Sal is quote-mining and engaging in innuendo about a teen-age girl and bestiality. If that's OK in your god-given moral code, then you certainly will have zero credibility the next time you get up on your Clydesdale and lecture atheists about their moral code...

Now please explain to me how the sins of her father need to be visited upon a teen-age girl. Before you answer, consider how you would feel if someone wrote a blog post implying that one of your kids used somebody else's painting for his award-winning duck stamp entry, and justified it by saying that they didn't agree with your unscientific attitude about the age of the earth. You seem to have lost track of that particular issue from my last post.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,14:26

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,14:26

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:14)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,14:01)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54)
Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.  

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!

How is that quote mining?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep on digging FTK!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Skatje > Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn’t actually matter to me. You’re right. There’s no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she’s against bestiality, there’s been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I’m just arguing a rational stance and I’m not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


? You're point?  How does that negate the fact that she condones the act?  She thinks it's A-okay to have relations with animals.  So what if she says she doesn't enjoy it personally.  That's not even the point.  You believe homosexuality is A-okay, yet you probably aren't participating in the act.  Same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK.
For starters, a typical blog post of yours consists of a paragraph of text somebody else wrote, a cryptic comment from you (if that) and somehow that counts as an opinion. So don't make me laugh.

FTK, I guess you are a vegetarian right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How does that negate the fact that she condones the act? She thinks it's A-okay to have relations with animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Condone? Oh, I thought you said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, oddly, I can't find the word "condone" or "condones" in the article. Perhaps it's not there to quotemine?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,14:28

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:26)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,
simple question.

Has a monogamous "marriage" type arrangement been in existence and predominated over rival arrangements during recorded history?

EDIT: Or rather, to what extent has civilisation depended on FTK's specific interpretation of the way to arrange a life and who to sleep with?

EDIT: Anyway, wasn't that the 60's FTK was describing? Not that I was there.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,14:29

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Honey, the fact that they never discussed the issue of religion with you is influential in and of itself.  Parents make a point of talking with their children about things they hold dear or that they think are important.  The fact that you've never heard word one from them about religious matters tells you that it's simply not important to them.  That is influential to a child.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not just words, nothing. No hints, nothing. I really don't know what they think is imporant, I don't know what they hold dear. It's odd I know.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,14:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.  

That is not quote mining.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,14:36

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.  

That is not quote mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote the bit where it says

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She does, however, condone it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,14:45

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:26)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then ask me, why the hell should you condemn someone who has sex with a horse (who doesn't even notice such a small human penis, compared to what a horse has) if the horse isn't troubled and if the human isn't troubled. Yes it's biological odd, I even think the brains of people who do that are damaged (afterall, it has no function or use whatsoever, it can be dangerous!) and I actually think the same about homosexuality (thus a little misswiring) but why the hell should I condemn it if 2 men are happy toghether even though it's biological odd.
Besides, are you saying someone can't be brought up by a homo-couple?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 02 2008,14:51

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,20:26)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point of this post being to highlight the assumed problems with moral relativism, I assume?

Of course, this rather misses the point of moral relativism. There is no absolute morality, therefore THE MAJORITY MORALITY WE ARE BROUGHT UP IN HOLDS SWAY. There is, in our shared culture (by our I'm including the majority of the industrialised world) the opinion it's wrong to kill, steal or use child labour (although this is somehow overlooked if the labour takes place in non industrialised or industrialising areas).

Similarly, for whatever reason (and I can think of many), it is seen as "immoral" for people to have sex with animals. However, that does not preclude the central point that just because there are numerous reasons for not doing something, and that the vast majority of people in the world would condemn it, that does not make it an absolute pronouncement.

The universe as a whole (according to moral relativism) has no opinion of any act, right or wrong, because there is nothing in the universe TO have an opinion, so we are left with the fickle opinions of people. An arrangement I am happy with.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 02 2008,14:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:09)
Really uncalled for, Bill.  But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.  How does that hit ya?  

Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans.

Pot, meet kettle...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you're just guessing. I had no role in creating Erasmus' post. I guess he wanted to borrow my mojo. As I indicated before, I'm not the AtBC police.

My post accurately reported timescales for various events that I invited you to attempt to imagine. And, of course, your posts since then demonstrate what you really prefer to engage while here: you ignored that post, which containined non-provocative content, and have since gone for the exciting down dirty stuff. That's what keeps it going here, because it keeps you twirling.

I believe I've made it clear that I find Sal a contemptible asshole. As we speak he is equating Darwin with Hitler, falsely suggesting that genocide follows from Darwinism (that tired old trope); he recently attempted to exploit Darwin's loss of two children in infancy (including his "deformed child") to score false and misleading rhetorical points regarding approval of "mutations"; suggested that it follows from Darwinism that we "should" receive anal intercourse from horses to make a similarly misleading point; suggested that approval of canabalism follows from Darwinism; dragged out Darwin's remorse over beating a puppy in childhood - all to make false, misleading points by means of contemptible deliberate distortion and dishonesty. What I stated is that Cordova displays more DISHONESTY in one post than a month of AtBC insults - as amply displayed in his recent YC posts. It is not the nastiness of his posts that bothers me, it is the contemptible DISHONESTY of his posts.

When I refer to Sal as "rectal prolapse" and denote his posts by means of various infectious oozings no one can mistake the intent of such statements: it is to express that contempt. However, I don't otherwise attempt to mislead others regarding the content of arguments important to this discussion, creationist or otherwise, as does Sal on a minute by minute basis.

As you defend him you endorse that dishonesty. There is no escaping that.

[edit for clarity]

[edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,14:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.  

That is not quote mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney.

Let me break it down for you (again).

1) Her name appears in the title of the post ("Skatje Myers on human-animal sex").

2) Her name appears in the post, followed by Sal's puerile musings about human-animal sex, a young lady, and her fiance.

3) Accompanying all this is a picture of a collared peccary.

4) He quotes something from that post that EVEN YOU interpreted as "condoning" sex with animals. The actual post, which he did not link to, says nothing of the sort, and explicitly contradicts what Sal implied in his excerpt.

Net effect is to imply that a particular teen-age girl would have sex with a collared peccary.

I'm not projecting; that is exactly the message Sal wanted to get across, via quote-mining and innuendo. You could show that short message to thousands of people who would immediately understand what Sal was implying. Why don't you take your computer to church this weekend and ask the congregation if they don't "project" to the same conclusion that I did?

Your defense of this disgusting post is quite telling. And you are still ignoring my question about your inane argument that the sins of the father should be visited upon a teen-age girl.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,15:05

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.  

That is not quote mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,15:12

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,14:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.  

That is not quote mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney.

Let me break it down for you (again).

1) Her name appears in the title of the post ("Skatje Myers on human-animal sex").

2) Her name appears in the post, followed by Sal's puerile musings about human-animal sex, a young lady, and her fiance.

3) Accompanying all this is a picture of a collared peccary.

4) He quotes something from that post that EVEN YOU interpreted as "condoning" sex with animals. The actual post, which he did not link to, says nothing of the sort, and explicitly contradicts what Sal implied in his excerpt.

Net effect is to imply that a particular teen-age girl would have sex with a collared peccary.

I'm not projecting; that is exactly the message Sal wanted to get across, via quote-mining and innuendo. You could show that short message to thousands of people who would immediately understand what Sal was implying. Why don't you take your computer to church this weekend and ask the congregation if they don't "project" to the same conclusion that I did?

Your defense of this disgusting post is quite telling. And you are still ignoring my question about your inane argument that the sins of the father should be visited upon a teen-age girl.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you **completely** daft?  It amazes me that we are even reading the same post written by Skatje.

OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals.  I have no idea how you can say otherwise.  I guess we have to just leave this to readers to decide for themselves as to whether she does or doesn't.

Just because someone isn't interested in participating in a particular sexual act themselves doesn't mean they don't think it's okay for everyone else to if they so choose.

What in the world is wrong with you?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,15:13

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12)
OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll be simple to quote the bit then.

EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,15:24

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about there own children then? How is that moral?

Aside from the other morality and general questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh. Because he's on the 'right side'. For FTK, nothing else really matters.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,15:29

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,15:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12)
OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll be simple to quote the bit then.

EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Diverting the discussion away from Sal's behavior is not going to work. Via quote mine and innuendo he left the impression that a teenage girl would have sex with a collared peccary. Absent any evidence to that effect, and regardless of the label as "humor", such behavior ON SAL'S PART is reprehensible. And you are defending him; you think that he has a "point". Those of us who find his behavior to be disgusting are considered "daft"; this behavior is somehow justified by your god-given moral code. That's simply amazing. As the saying goes, you can't make this shit up.

And ahem, here we go again, for at least the fourth time. Do you really believe that the sins (real or imagined) of the father should be visited on a teenage girl?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,15:31

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:52)
[edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I prefer the moniker < The Most Disgusting Piece of Spooge on Teh Interwebs >.

It suits him well.

Ftk, you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

Further, it's rather telling that you find any sexual orientations other than your own immoral by assumption, yet being a lying sack of crap like Sal is just fine.  "Without Integrity and Without Remorse" should be on Young Cosmos' header.

With a moral compass like that, you hardly have grounds to pontificate.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,15:49

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,15:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,15:13)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12)
OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll be simple to quote the bit then.

EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Diverting the discussion away from Sal's behavior is not going to work. Via quote mine and innuendo he left the impression that a teenage girl would have sex with a collared peccary. Absent any evidence to that effect, and regardless of the label as "humor", such behavior ON SAL'S PART is reprehensible. And you are defending him; you think that he has a "point". Those of us who find his behavior to be disgusting are considered "daft"; this behavior is somehow justified by your god-given moral code. That's simply amazing. As the saying goes, you can't make this shit up.

And ahem, here we go again, for at least the fourth time. Do you really believe that the sins (real or imagined) of the father should be visited on a teenage girl?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, *daft*.  I've already said I do not support Sal's recent attempts at humor.  I've said *several* times now.  You keep after than angle to ignore what I'm really saying.  

1.  I, *again*, do not condone Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor.  

2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute.

3.  What sins of the father are you refering to?  What sins of the father are being visited on the "teenage girl"?  I can't imagine that you or either one of them believe these issues to be a "sin".  On what grounds would one consider them sins?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,15:52

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:09)
Really uncalled for, Bill.  But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.  How does that hit ya?  

Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans.

Pot, meet kettle...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you're just guessing. I had no role in creating Erasmus' post. I guess he wanted to borrow my mojo. As I indicated before, I'm not the AtBC police.

My post accurately reported timescales for various events that I invited you to attempt to imagine. And, of course, your posts since then demonstrate what you really prefer to engage while here: you ignored that post, which containined non-provocative content, and have since gone for the exciting down dirty stuff. That's what keeps it going here, because it keeps you twirling.

I believe I've made it clear that I find Sal a contemptible asshole. As we speak he is equating Darwin with Hitler, falsely suggesting that genocide follows from Darwinism (that tired old trope); he recently attempted to exploit Darwin's loss of two children in infancy (including his "deformed child") to score false and misleading rhetorical points regarding approval of "mutations"; suggested that it follows from Darwinism that we "should" receive anal intercourse from horses to make a similarly misleading point; suggested that approval of canabalism follows from Darwinism; dragged out Darwin's remorse over beating a puppy in childhood - all to make false, misleading points by means of contemptible deliberate distortion and dishonesty. What I stated is that Cordova displays more DISHONESTY in one post than a month of AtBC insults - as amply displayed in his recent YC posts. It is not the nastiness of his posts that bothers me, it is the contemptible DISHONESTY of his posts.

When I refer to Sal as "rectal prolapse" and denote his posts by means of various infectious oozings no one can mistake the intent of such statements: it is to express that contempt. However, I don't otherwise attempt to mislead others regarding the content of arguments important to this discussion, creationist or otherwise, as does Sal on a minute by minute basis.

As you defend him you endorse that dishonesty. There is no escaping that.

[edit for clarity]

[edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salvador's sleazy behavior has been going on for years. He earned the nickname "Sleazy Sal" before FtK even had a username here.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,15:53

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:49)
2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The implication being that your system is the opposite?

Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,16:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26)
We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Greengrocer's apostrophe >.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 02 2008,16:03

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:49)

and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,20:26)
     
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point of this post being to highlight the assumed problems with moral relativism, I assume?

Of course, this rather misses the point of moral relativism. There is no absolute morality, therefore THE MAJORITY MORALITY WE ARE BROUGHT UP IN HOLDS SWAY. There is, in our shared culture (by our I'm including the majority of the industrialised world) the opinion it's wrong to kill, steal or use child labour (although this is somehow overlooked if the labour takes place in non industrialised or industrialising areas).

Similarly, for whatever reason (and I can think of many), it is seen as "immoral" for people to have sex with animals. However, that does not preclude the central point that just because there are numerous reasons for not doing something, and that the vast majority of people in the world would condemn it, that does not make it an absolute pronouncement.

The universe as a whole (according to moral relativism) has no opinion of any act, right or wrong, because there is nothing in the universe TO have an opinion, so we are left with the fickle opinions of people. An arrangement I am happy with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDITS:God damn it. Repeated edits because I failed to get this post right first time, and it STILL isn't correct.

But you get the general impression.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,16:05

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26)
We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Greengrocer's apostrophe >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,16:07

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:49)
Again, *daft*.  I've already said I do not support Sal's recent attempts at humor.  I've said *several* times now.  You keep after than angle to ignore what I'm really saying.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not ignoring what you are saying. On the contrary, I am trying to make you focus on that, and the ramifications thereof.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  I, *again*, do not condone Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was already understood; this sentence is just a diversion.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you are unable to find evidence that she "condones" it, despite numerous requests. My reading of her words simply is that she feels it should not be "illegal". I may not condone the behavior of somebody who rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't think it should be illegal. There's a difference, and it is not subtle. There is no mention of "morality" in her post; your previous accusation of projection seems to apply to you here. If you continue to maintain that she "condones" all those things you mentioned, please provide the evidence from her words, not from your projections.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  What sins of the father are you refering to?  What sins of the father are being visited on the "teenage girl"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In < this comment, > you wrote    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This indicates that you justify Sal's slimy innuendoes about Skatje because her father is an "ardent religion basher". That may not be how you meant it, but that is how it comes across. In addition, it is hyperbolic to assume that your future would be "without religion". Finally, if your moral code justifies quote-mining and innuendo about a teenage girl having sex with a collared peccary, I think you have no credibility in discussing the moral codes of others.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,16:09

Look, I think the problem here is that people are using different definitions of the word 'condone.' Alba et al appear to be using this one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's no evidence that Skatje approves of beastiality. If Ftk thinks so, she needs to provide more support than she has done so far. But I think that Ftk is using this definition:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think there is sufficient evidence that the young Ms. Myers disregards such behavior even though she finds it personally objectionable.

What any of this has to do with moral relativism, I have no idea. (just kidding. I know that it's a common talking point to call someone a moral relativist when they believe in giving people greater freedoms). I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,16:11

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:05)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26)
We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Greengrocer's apostrophe >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only you could edit your comments....
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 02 2008,16:12

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:09)
I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think that is QUITE true, but it's pretty much there.

I think (and this is only my opinion based upon what I've seen) FTK knows moral relativism means there is no fixed, absolute morality in the universe (which is, lets face it, THE main point of the idea) however she then fails to get the followup, which is that human societal morality is used as a substitue.

She seems to see the lack of ABSOLUTE morals as, effectively, a lack of morals.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,16:15

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:09)
What any of this has to do with moral relativism, I have no idea. (just kidding. I know that it's a common talking point to call someone a moral relativist when they believe in giving people greater freedoms). I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And of course, FtK is not going to expound on her position, other than some stuff about "icky feelings".
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,16:16

Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia.

Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying.

Have fun.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2008,16:17

Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular:

My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word.

That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .

Edit (there, now I feel fully de-lurked): argy beat me to it. And while we could certainly debate the various connotations of the word, it is silly to hold up FTK's use of it as "quote-mining" in such a target-rich environment.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,16:17

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:05)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26)
We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Greengrocer's apostrophe >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only you could edit your comments....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had considered going there, Steve.  But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,16:20

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16)
Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia.

Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying.

Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals.

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 >

Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,16:27

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular:

My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word.

That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Point taken. A good example of why settling on the definitions is the first task in any formal debate.

My apologies, FtK. If that is how you defined "condone", then my definition is different. We were talking about two different things.

But the argument about the word "condones" revolved around your writings, not Sal's. His quote-mining and innuendo stand on their own, independent of any argument about your word usage or definitions. The usage of "forgive or overlook" won't absolve him; he implied active participation.
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 02 2008,16:27

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Microwave popcorn:
$0.39

Iced diet Pepsi:
$1.87

Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on:
Priceless
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,16:30

Condone - from Webster’s dictionary:  to forgive or overlook.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not all cases of bestiality are this way though. Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They’ll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don’t have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It’s not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn’t hurt, so animal abuse doesn’t apply.

The second argument against zoophilia is that animals are unable to consent to have sex. That’s complete crap. Animals understand what sex is and they CAN communicate it. Not in words, of course, but in action.

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that is not “condoning” zoophilia, then I don’t know what is.

[qu[ote]Finally, if your moral code justifies quote-mining and innuendo about a teenage girl having sex with a collared peccary, I think you have no credibility in discussing the moral codes of others. [/quote]

This is certainly not an example of quote mining, but then it doesn’t surprise me that you would think it is.  Darwinists cry “quote mine” at the drop of a hat.  The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,16:33

Oh, hell.  You guys are posting faster than I can respond to you.

I'm going to beg off a while and let everyone have there say before I try to respond to anyone further.  Right now, I'm thinking about 6 different questions that have been posed to me and my thoughts are becoming a tangled mess.

Later...
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,16:33

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16)
Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia.

Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying.

Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals.

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 >

Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website?

Actually, it's still up and it makes Fred Phelps' site look positively tame by comparison.

Years ago, he used to have a page up that advocated the use of nuclear weapons against major US cities - there was an infamous page of graphics that showed why the cities needed to be nuked.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2008,16:51

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:30)
The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O RLY? Would you care to explain your use of the following bolded phrase:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tu quoque may not be a particularly effective justification, but it certainly constitutes an attempt. (You must agree that it seems a rather odd adjective phrase to use if anything other than a half-assed attempt at justification was implied.) Would you care to retract the above italicized accusation of dishonesty? Or would you prefer to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,16:52

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 02 2008,16:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Microwave popcorn:
$0.39

Iced diet Pepsi:
$1.87

Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on:
Priceless
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never cease to amaze me, Cheryl.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,16:56

Incorygible wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin!
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 02 2008,17:00

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:52)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 02 2008,16:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Microwave popcorn:
$0.39

Iced diet Pepsi:
$1.87

Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on:
Priceless
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never cease to amaze me, Cheryl.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, thank you very much!

PS: If you don't want your first name used here, then don't use mine.  mmkay?  Ta ever so . . . :)
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,17:01

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:51)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:30)
The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O RLY? Would you care to explain your use of the following bolded phrase:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tu quoque may not be a particularly effective justification, but it certainly constitutes an attempt. (You must agree that it seems a rather odd adjective phrase to use if anything other than a half-assed attempt at justification was implied.) Would you care to retract the above italicized accusation of dishonesty? Or would you prefer to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2008,17:01

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:56)
Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL! You know, part of me actually just had the brief urge to track Davey down. But much as I don't (usually) listen to other agenda-driven parts of me advocating re-establishing ties with long-lost exes, I'm going to ignore that part, too --  nothing good can come of it. Nevertheless, a man needs luvvin -- is it too late to choose the peccary?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 02 2008,17:03

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular:

My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word.

That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .

Edit (there, now I feel fully de-lurked): argy beat me to it. And while we could certainly debate the various connotations of the word, it is silly to hold up FTK's use of it as "quote-mining" in such a target-rich environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course.

Personally I just wanted FTK to know what it felt like to say something, and then provide something else, in this case the specific part of the post in question that she felt most significantly encapsulated her point, as further proof and in support of her original argument.

Mostly. And I was interested in the specific part that would be picked.

Now, perhaps, the other pending "questions" can be dealt with in a similar matter?

 ;)
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2008,17:05

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:01)
I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I defended your use of 'condone' as proper, but if you expect the same for your use of 'justify', you're pissin' up the wrong tree, lady. I guess I'm a hypocrite that way.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,17:15

Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,17:15

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,17:33)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20)
 
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16)
Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia.

Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying.

Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals.

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 >

Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


R the MFing A.


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 02 2008,17:21

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,23:15)
Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same here.

I rather feel we're being ignored.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,17:22

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:56)
Incorygible wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt he'll speak up again when he sees someone is being unfair to a creationist.  Certainly he wouldn't want to be accused by his peers of "know[ing] how to get some good creationist luvvin!"

Good work, Argy.

It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate.

I'd extend to Incorygible my appreciation for him speaking up, but that would probably make him look bad, so I won't.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,17:25

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,18:05)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:01)
I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I defended your use of 'condone' as proper, but if you expect the same for your use of 'justify', you're pissin' up the wrong tree, lady. I guess I'm a hypocrite that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're atheists on a daily basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,17:25

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:15)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,17:33)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20)
   
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16)
Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia.

Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying.

Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals.

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 >

Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


R the MFing A.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the linked article - not the comments. Reading the comments at DailyKos is right up there with self-trepination on my "things I like to do" list.

I've never been clear about whether or not the Nuremberg Files were posted at the Christian Gallery or not - and I've never had the stomach to search through that site to find out. And the link does nothing to clear that up.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,17:46

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22)
It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, just for the record, I think it was oldman who first brought up the apparent lack of the use of the word "condone" in Skatje's blog post.

And just for the record, my definition is as accepted as your definition, which makes it OK to agree with my definition. It's not a problem. It's certainly not as much of a problem as agreeing with Sal about something which is indefensible to all who are not wearing creationist blinders.

And finally, just for the record, I immediately apologized to you for the confusion, in case you didn't notice.

You're quite welcome, even if you can't bring yourself to type "Thanks".

Carry on.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2008,17:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22)
I doubt he'll speak up again when he sees someone is being unfair to a creationist.  Certainly he wouldn't want to be accused by his peers of "know[ing] how to get some good creationist luvvin!"

Good work, Argy.

It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate.

I'd extend to Incorygible my appreciation for him speaking up, but that would probably make him look bad, so I won't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you ever climb down off that cross? Never mind -- I've lurked on this thread long enough to know the answer (note that I've posted here before, hon). So I defend you on one narrow point of diction and now you're making hay, eh? No worries -- you have a lot of straw men to prop up. Have your little 'victories' been so few and far between? (Never mind -- I know the answer to that one, too, m'dear.)

Only you, FtK, could use my interjection on behalf of accuracy/consistency as an argument that you'll never find it among us hypocritical non-creationists. Only you could follow up a number of posts agreeing with my interjection with "I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition". Only you could mention Argy by name -- whose defense of your use of 'condone' preceded my own, as noted in the edit -- one little period before asserting that it "took a lurker" to point out. Only you could presume to know, on the basis of a few posts, when I would choose to speak up against the dread Darwinian gestapo. Only you would characterize this incident as "unfair" to creationists. Need any more nails, luv?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 02 2008,17:59

Meanwhile, < Sal > is slipping from contemptible to just plain weird:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science

...There is a video which dramatizes the victory of Christian civilization against the Nazi Darwinists in the Battle of Brittain. You can get a copy of the The Battle of Britain starring Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, and Trevor Howard from Amazon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Winston Churchill describes his voracious reading during his early 20s:

"From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato's Republic - it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin's Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing."

Winston Churchill, My Early Life: 1874-1904
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,18:06

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,17:46)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22)
It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, just for the record, I think it was oldman who first brought up the apparent lack of the use of the word "condone" in Skatje's blog post.

And just for the record, my definition is as accepted as your definition, which makes it OK to agree with my definition. It's not a problem. It's certainly not as much of a problem as agreeing with Sal about something which is indefensible to all who are not wearing creationist blinders.

And finally, just for the record, I immediately apologized to you for the confusion, in case you didn't notice.

You're quite welcome, even if you can't bring yourself to type "Thanks".

Carry on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what's not to agree with in regard to what Sal wrote.  Obviously Skatje finds it morally acceptable to have sex with animals as well as participating in incestuous relationships.  It's written in black and white.  No quote mining necessary.  I find it seriously odd that this is condsidered quote mining.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 02 2008,18:09

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:59)
Meanwhile, < Sal > is slipping from contemptible to just plain weird:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science

...There is a video which dramatizes the victory of Christian civilization against the Nazi Darwinists in the Battle of Brittain. You can get a copy of the The Battle of Britain starring Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, and Trevor Howard from Amazon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Winston Churchill describes his voracious reading during his early 20s:

"From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato's Republic - it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin's Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing."

Winston Churchill, My Early Life: 1874-1904
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously:
1.  Hitler was a Darwinist.
2.  Churchill fought Hitler.
3.  Therefore Churchill was a creationist.

I'm looking forward to part 2:
4.  Stalin was a Darwinist.
5.  Hitler fought Stalin.
6.  Therefore Hitler was a creationist.

And part 3:
7.  Stalin was a Darwinist.
8.  Churchill was a creationist.
9.  Stalin and Churchill were on the same side.
10.  Therefore Sal is suing his brain for non-support.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 02 2008,18:17

Ftk, fact is, you're lacking a LOT of knowledge the evolutional theory and Darwinism. Really, a lot, even some mucho importanté basics (like the morality thing). How can we properly discuss this with you then?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,18:20

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:25)
Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,18:05)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:01)
I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I defended your use of 'condone' as proper, but if you expect the same for your use of 'justify', you're pissin' up the wrong tree, lady. I guess I'm a hypocrite that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're atheists on a daily basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're atheist's on a daly basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,18:22

The "Recent Comments" sidebar at Young Cosmos is hilarious.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 02 2008,18:31

It gets more complex for Sal. Churchill also participated in the eugenics movement, representing England at an international conference on eugenics conducted in London in 1912 (other participants included Charles Darwin's son and Alexander Graham Bell). Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics, and reassured one group of eugenicists that Britain's 120,000 "feebleminded" persons "should, if possible, be segregated under proper conditions so that their curse died with them and was not transmitted to future generations."

Onward Christian Britain, eh, Sal?

Moral? "Morals" are rarely as simple as the black hat - white hat picture Sal (and Ftk, since she's about to leap to his defense again) would like.

See: War Against the Weak
By Edwin Black.
2003
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 02 2008,18:43

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,18:17)
Ftk, fact is, you're lacking a LOT of knowledge the evolutional theory and Darwinism. Really, a lot, even some mucho importanté basics (like the morality thing). How can we properly discuss this with you then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, young man, a good first step would be to show her the proper respect.


Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,18:49

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,19:22)
The "Recent Comments" sidebar at Young Cosmos is hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah it is.

He's so dumb.  

Note to anyone who cares:  Ftk just moved venues over to Pharyngula and started all over again like this discussion never took place.

Funny?  Yes.  Shocking?  Not even a little bit.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 02 2008,19:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,18:31)
It gets more complex for Sal. Churchill also participated in the eugenics movement, representing England at an international conference on eugenics conducted in London in 1912 (other participants included Charles Darwin's son and Alexander Graham Bell). Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics, and reassured one group of eugenicists that Britain's 120,000 "feebleminded" persons "should, if possible, be segregated under proper conditions so that their curse died with them and was not transmitted to future generations."

Onward Christian Britain, eh, Sal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better still:

While a soldier in the 21st Lancers, Churchill participated in the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan. On August 24, 1898 he wrote to his mother that within 10 days:
 

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

"there will be a general action - perhaps a very severe one. I may be killed. I do not think so. But if I am you must avail yourself of the consolations of philosophy and reflect on the utter insignificance of all human beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He continues:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I can assure you I do not flinch - though I do not accept the Christian or any other form of religious belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 02 2008,19:07

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:02)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,12:23)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:04)
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....

(sorry Assi, I swear I'll get to you by the end of the day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's quote-mining. See the < entire post > from which Sal quotes, and note that he does not give a link to that post. Perhaps that is because it starts out with this        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet Sal's post implies that she would have a collared peccary as a fiance.

2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.

Sal is disgusting because he is a liar (quote-mining is lying) and because he feels that 16 yr old girls are fair game for "proving" his fantasies about atheists/darwinists/evilutionists. Read that again.  Sal is disgusting. Please quit trying to switch the conversation to a discussion of why (or if) bestiality is disgusting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,

1.  Sal HT'd me...so that's not quote mining.  I linked to Skatje's *entire* post.  I'll make sure that where he HT'd me the link is accessible for those who don't read the post right before his.

2.  It doesn't matter if Skatje wants to hump animals or not.  The point is that it is completely moral to do so.  

3.  Sal implying that "she would have a collared peccary as a fiance" is humor meant to drive the point home.  For the record, this is not the type of humor I advocate. But, it is interesting to note that your outrage is only displayed when you feel someone from my side has stepped over the line in this way.  For instance, Erasamus's post yesterday was just as outrageous, yet not word from you on that one...interesting.

He wrote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

The moments between the first greeting between King David and Johnathan, and the time required for David to reach a full, complete erection.

The number of times Joseph wondered just who in the hell his betrothed wife had been slipping around with.

How many calluses must have been on the palm of Jesus, the virgin haploid redeemer of mankind.  Alternatively, did he never masturbate?  Did Jesus sometimes consider breaking his own rules so that he might relieve a little pressure?  If he didn't, can we say that he is truly human?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evidently RB (Reciprocating Bill?) helped him with that one and has no problem with it either.

The hypocrisy is rampant at this site.

The fact that Skatje is 17 is irrelevant.  She is an extremely intelligent woman who has put a LOT of thought into these matters.  She's in college and has probably given more thought to these issues than most adults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, my dear, you know what - you can just shelve the idea of me participating in that blog diet thingie.

Because I've lost my appetite!

Whatever this ongoing, beyond-ridiculous, and nauseating pettifoggery means to you, obviously to Skatje it means no unnecessary legislation. But by all means, wallow in young earth if you think it so important to your cause.

Tell you what - weighing in. I could be 110 pounds or 310. Keep an "open mind." Goodbye, good luck, and may your God help you. I admit it's beyond me.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,19:10

Wowwwwwww!!!!  I get to play the martyr now.  hey FtK I'll scoot over a bit, there is room for you up on my cross.

You are such a fraud that you don't deserve the respect of taking you seriously.  Note that I have very gradually grown to this conclusion, and it is not final.  But, your incapacity to be honest and your desire to flounce in here and vomit some idiocy over a discussion board, then toss your hair and smother a fart and change the subject about 15 times before saying that some subset of folks here are meanies and athiests what don't love the Lard, blah blah blah Jack Kreb's sucks blah blah Sal's not so bad blah blah blah two different interpretations of evidence blah blah blah kids soccer blah rare Fuck or Shit (what's up with that?  that makes me think you are a troll, which would me make like you again) blah blah PZ and Skatje and Dawkins and Hitler and Genghis Khan blah blah blah ad infinitum, has caused me, quite frankly, to conclude that you are not only aware of how stupid you sound but that you see this as some perverse stigmata.

Being an Idiot for Jesus!!!  I'm a Fool For Teh Lard!!1 Gawd is on my side facts be dammed!

So it's my fault, I'm an asshole, while you are honest and have the best of intentions.  Athiests sit down shut up.  As you wish.  I love it so!!!!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,19:13

p.s. it could be that I am both an asshole and completely not an asshole.  After all they are just interpretations of the same evidence right?  Same for you.  It's all just opinion and every man's is as good as every other mans*.

*(but not every womans, read your good New Testament won't you dearie and then perhaps you'll cover your head before you come in this atheist church and you won't be so high and mighty thinking that you can teach mean about things when the bible clearly tells you to Shut It about such manners).
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 02 2008,19:14

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,18:06)
I don't know what's not to agree with in regard to what Sal wrote.  Obviously Skatje finds it morally acceptable to have sex with animals as well as participating in incestuous relationships.  It's written in black and white.  No quote mining necessary.  I find it seriously odd that this is condsidered quote mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Morally" is not discussed. "Legally" is discussed. As noted before, those are not equivalent. Read what people wrote, not what you wish they had written. Thanks.

And where the hell did incest get mentioned favorably in her comments, exactly?

If you don't understand why Sal's use of an excerpt, accompanied by massive doses of innuendo, and free of any link to the entire article where the implications of both the quoted excerpt and his innuendo are explicitly refuted, is NOT quote-mining, then you need a new dictionary as well. This effort by Sal could be a textbook example of quote-mining, and yet you defend it. That goes beyond "seriously odd" and ventures close to "legally blind".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,19:15

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,18:49)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,19:22)
The "Recent Comments" sidebar at Young Cosmos is hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah it is.

He's so dumb.  

Note to anyone who cares:  Ftk just moved venues over to Pharyngula and started all over again like this discussion never took place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why she doesn't just come out and say what she feels: "BUT YOU GUYS ARE ALL ATHIEST'S!!!!!!!!1111!!! THAT MEANS EVERYTHING YOUR SAYING IS WRONG!!!!!!!! WHY CANT YOU SEE THIS????"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,19:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,18:49)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,19:22)
The "Recent Comments" sidebar at Young Cosmos is hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah it is.

He's so dumb.  

Note to anyone who cares:  Ftk just moved venues over to Pharyngula and started all over again like this discussion never took place.

Funny?  Yes.  Shocking?  Not even a little bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't debunk creationist rubbish, it just changes venue.

PEPPERED MOTHS!!!!!
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,19:39

BANNED!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, what you and Slimy Sal are doing is called innuendo and slander. You want to insinuate that the children of Darwinists are immoral who will allow bestiality and incest to run rampant; you want to claim that atheism leads to heinous offenses against civilized culture.

You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance. That's all Skatje is advocating: that we can't lock people up for non-harmful, private acts. She only opposes bestiality as a crime against animals, and there are already statues in place to handle that.

But yes, you are incredibly creepy. So creepy that if every I were unfortunate enough to meet either you or Slimy Sal in person I would not shake hands with you, unless there was a washroom handy and a bucket of disinfectant available.

It's the dungeon for you. Good riddance.

Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2008 8:30 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyway, Ftk, if you ever want to continue down this conversational path, I think you should drop the word 'condone.' It has two easily confused definitions (and you've used them both in this conversation - you said you don't condone Sal's post). To me, condone most commonly means "approve of" or "support," which is the second definition in the dictionaries I've looked at, but appears to be the one that most people associate with the word. Skatje's clear that she means that she would tolerate the act, and that's probably the word you should use in the future. Otherwise the comments reek of inappropriate innuendo.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,20:01

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,18:49)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,19:22)
The "Recent Comments" sidebar at Young Cosmos is hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah it is.

He's so dumb.  

Note to anyone who cares:  Ftk just moved venues over to Pharyngula and started all over again like this discussion never took place.

Funny?  Yes.  Shocking?  Not even a little bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm writing about that at this very moment. FtK has won an award of her own.

Stay tuned.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,20:02

I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,20:06

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's where FTK's legendary ability to hold completely contradictory ideas in her head at the same time comes in handy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,20:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,20:06)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's where FTK's legendary ability to hold completely contradictory ideas in her head at the same time comes in handy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, they're both equally valid.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 02 2008,20:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2008,21:07)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,20:06)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's where FTK's legendary ability to hold completely contradictory ideas in her head at the same time comes in handy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, they're both equally valid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they're both equally valid, but I'm open to the possibility that one is 10,000 times more valid than the other.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,20:14

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,20:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2008,21:07)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,20:06)
 
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's where FTK's legendary ability to hold completely contradictory ideas in her head at the same time comes in handy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, they're both equally valid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they're both equally valid, but I'm open to the possibility that one is 10,000 times more valid than the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some ideas are more equally valid than others.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 02 2008,20:50

FtK wrote:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, hell.  Oh, hell. Oh, hell.  Oh, hell.

I'm thinking and my thoughts are becoming a tangled mess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,21:11

Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,21:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


< http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm >
Posted by: ERV on Jan. 02 2008,21:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Which goes along with the rest of her post perfectly!  Yay!

So whats your point, FtK?  Did PZ peg ya wrong?  Explain it to us.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,21:32

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 02 2008,19:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:07)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:02)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,12:23)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,12:04)
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  So, I'm not sure why Sal is being disgusting.  Are those type of relationships "disgusting", and if so, why?

Discuss....

(sorry Assi, I swear I'll get to you by the end of the day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's quote-mining. See the < entire post > from which Sal quotes, and note that he does not give a link to that post. Perhaps that is because it starts out with this          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet Sal's post implies that she would have a collared peccary as a fiance.

2) She's what, 16? Sal should stick to picking on grown-ups like ERV. Of course, I have no doubts that she can eviscerate Sal verbally. But she really shouldn't have to do that.

Sal is disgusting because he is a liar (quote-mining is lying) and because he feels that 16 yr old girls are fair game for "proving" his fantasies about atheists/darwinists/evilutionists. Read that again.  Sal is disgusting. Please quit trying to switch the conversation to a discussion of why (or if) bestiality is disgusting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,

1.  Sal HT'd me...so that's not quote mining.  I linked to Skatje's *entire* post.  I'll make sure that where he HT'd me the link is accessible for those who don't read the post right before his.

2.  It doesn't matter if Skatje wants to hump animals or not.  The point is that it is completely moral to do so.  

3.  Sal implying that "she would have a collared peccary as a fiance" is humor meant to drive the point home.  For the record, this is not the type of humor I advocate. But, it is interesting to note that your outrage is only displayed when you feel someone from my side has stepped over the line in this way.  For instance, Erasamus's post yesterday was just as outrageous, yet not word from you on that one...interesting.

He wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

The moments between the first greeting between King David and Johnathan, and the time required for David to reach a full, complete erection.

The number of times Joseph wondered just who in the hell his betrothed wife had been slipping around with.

How many calluses must have been on the palm of Jesus, the virgin haploid redeemer of mankind.  Alternatively, did he never masturbate?  Did Jesus sometimes consider breaking his own rules so that he might relieve a little pressure?  If he didn't, can we say that he is truly human?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evidently RB (Reciprocating Bill?) helped him with that one and has no problem with it either.

The hypocrisy is rampant at this site.

The fact that Skatje is 17 is irrelevant.  She is an extremely intelligent woman who has put a LOT of thought into these matters.  She's in college and has probably given more thought to these issues than most adults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, my dear, you know what - you can just shelve the idea of me participating in that blog diet thingie.

Because I've lost my appetite!

Whatever this ongoing, beyond-ridiculous, and nauseating pettifoggery means to you, obviously to Skatje it means no unnecessary legislation. But by all means, wallow in young earth if you think it so important to your cause.

Tell you what - weighing in. I could be 110 pounds or 310. Keep an "open mind." Goodbye, good luck, and may your God help you. I admit it's beyond me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good Lord, whatever...

Visiting you people is like taking a step into bizarro world.  Everything I have written about this incident has been absolute fact, and I've linked to prove it every single time.  Skatje wrote that post the first of October, and I've never mentioned it until everyone thought Sal was some kind of demented villian for suggesting that bestiality might be considered acceptable from an evolutionary standpoint.  Of course it is...we are part of the animal world and there is no reason why a person shouldn't engage in that type of behavior *if they want to*.  

If a "creationist" (take Sal for example) had written the post that Skatje wrote on Zoophilia, you guys would have lost your ever loving minds.  That post would have appeared on every one of your blogs and forums, and you'd have talked about it and linked back to it for years.  It would have been linked to *immediately* rather than let it be ignored it for three months.

Kristine, you probably would have linked to it first...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,21:33

Quote (ERV @ Jan. 02 2008,21:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Which goes along with the rest of her post perfectly!  Yay!

So whats your point, FtK?  Did PZ peg ya wrong?  Explain it to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know! I know!

"YOU ATHIESTS ARE ALL HORRIBLE WICKED PEOPLE!!! DARWINISM IS WRONG!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Did I guess right?
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 02 2008,21:36

Ftk,

Go lie down and stay away from blogging for a couple of weeks.  You'll be all right.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,21:45

Jesus, Lady (Jesus-Lady), you are a freak.  

THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT FROM WHICH MORALS ABOUT HORSE FUCKING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FUCKING ARE DERIVED

It has nothing to do with it.  it is simple.  You know this, and that makes you a liar.  And a stupid one too, because you can't even keep a straight face while you do it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,22:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Good lord, Skatje puts up with some flaming assholes at her blog. I'm amazed that she won't even ban Legion.

I think it's true: I think a certain kind of fundie shithead harasses Skatje because they're too lame to take on PZ, so she's an unthreatening surrogate target.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:17

For PZ:

He wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, what you and Slimy Sal are doing is called innuendo and slander. You want to insinuate that the children of Darwinists are immoral who will allow bestiality and incest to run rampant; you want to claim that atheism leads to heinous offenses against civilized culture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



PZ is absolutely wrong.  I’m not insinuating that “Darwinists” are immoral.  I couldn’t possibly insinuate that because I know many, and they are certainly not immoral.  What I am saying is that from an philosophical naturalist’s point of view, there is absolutely no reason why one shouldn’t engage in bestiality and incest if they *want to*.  If those are the “heinous offenses” that he is referring to, then yes, I think that atheists would “condone” such behavior.  He and his daughter obviously believe those private acts are acceptable as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.    

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's all Skatje is advocating: that we can't lock people up for non-harmful, private acts. She only opposes bestiality as a crime against animals, and there are already statues in place to handle that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skatje went much farther than advocating that it’s okay for it to be legal.  She went as far as stating that this type of relationship with your pet could be very meaningful:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But yes, you are incredibly creepy. So creepy that if every I were unfortunate enough to meet either you or Slimy Sal in person I would not shake hands with you, unless there was a washroom handy and a bucket of disinfectant available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,22:20

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:17)
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt they'll be off to Baylor, or Dembski's place.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,22:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Good lord, Skatje puts up with some flaming assholes at her blog. I'm amazed that she won't even ban Legion.

I think it's true: I think a certain kind of fundie shithead harasses Skatje because they're too lame to take on PZ, so she's an unthreatening surrogate target.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they take on PZ, they'll just get banned anyway.  

Talk back to the big guy and your gone....dungeon city.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,22:25

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
Talk back to the big guy and your gone....dungeon city.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


best Sig. Evvvvvvver?

Say it it your worst B-movie actor giving bad monologue style.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,22:26

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,22:09)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Good lord, Skatje puts up with some flaming assholes at her blog. I'm amazed that she won't even ban Legion.

I think it's true: I think a certain kind of fundie shithead harasses Skatje because they're too lame to take on PZ, so she's an unthreatening surrogate target.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they take on PZ, they'll just get banned anyway.  

Talk back to the big guy and your gone....dungeon city.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What song would you like to hear, FtK?

Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,22:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
Talk back to the big guy and your gone....dungeon city.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


best Sig. Evvvvvvver?

Say it it your worst B-movie actor giving bad monologue style.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, a Jack Webb voice works perfectly. Especially since it kinda rhymes with Jack Krebs.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,22:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hee hee don't worry they don't have any biologists at Bob Jones.  so there is not much chance of that.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.

You are saying that if 'philosophical naturalism' equates 'darwinists' then those philosophical naturalists are amoral.  see, look



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from an philosophical naturalist’s point of view, there is absolutely no reason why one shouldn’t engage in bestiality and incest if they *want to*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



since you find those acts immoral, either those condoning such behaviors (there is that word you don't understand again, but i'll use it in the dishonest way that you used it too) are immoral or without morals.  since, you know, you are the one possessing the one true code of morals and stuff.  See the KJV1611.

you are a fraud.  and a dumb one.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,22:27

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,22:09)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Good lord, Skatje puts up with some flaming assholes at her blog. I'm amazed that she won't even ban Legion.

I think it's true: I think a certain kind of fundie shithead harasses Skatje because they're too lame to take on PZ, so she's an unthreatening surrogate target.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they take on PZ, they'll just get banned anyway.  

Talk back to the big guy and your gone....dungeon city.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

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



What the fuck? PZ hasn't ever, to my knowledge, suggested any legal changes that would threaten individual religious freedom, and thinks that there shouldn't be any legal repercussions for being religious. You might even say he condones religion!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:28

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,21:45)
Jesus, Lady (Jesus-Lady), you are a freak.  

THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT FROM WHICH MORALS ABOUT HORSE FUCKING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FUCKING ARE DERIVED

It has nothing to do with it.  it is simple.  You know this, and that makes you a liar.  And a stupid one too, because you can't even keep a straight face while you do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT FROM WHICH MORALS ABOUT HORSE FUCKING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FUCKING ARE DERIVED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From an atheist's stance, evolution certainly does affect morality and how we "fuck".  We evolved from the animal world and morals and "fucking" evolved along with it.  

How dense can you be?  There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,22:31

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,23:27)

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


:)

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:37

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

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



What the fuck? PZ hasn't ever, to my knowledge, suggested any legal changes that would threaten individual religious freedom, and thinks that there shouldn't be any legal repercussions for being religious. You might even say he condones religion!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!

I said the man is INTOLERANT.  Period.  His blog is set up to encourage intolerance of religion.  Are you blind?

Here, maybe I need to get out the dictionary again:

Intolerant:  Unable to tolerate other's beliefs.

Tolerate:  to respect others' beliefs, practices, etc. without sharing them.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,22:38

r-e-a-d-t-h-i-s-v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y-s-o-i-t-c-a-n-s-i-n-k-i-n



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.  That sort of topic has the same relationship to [the science of understanding the relationships between organisms via common descent and natural selection] as does a sculpture made from the pubic hair of Franciscan nuns to the statue of liberty.

It's like blaming the inventor of language (hmmm, let's see, that would be Yahweh, two times:  Eden and Babel) for Two Live Crew or Celine Dion.  Are you stupid enough to be willing to do that?  I imagine that you can probably believe that it is true and not true, simultaneously.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:45

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I can't help it if people don't know the definition of condone.  In fact, in my dictionary the definition I used is the only one available.  

Same < here >.  

I have no idea why every is so worked up over that word.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,22:50

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:45)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I can't help it if people don't know the definition of condone.  In fact, in my dictionary the definition I used is the only one available.  

Same < here >.  

I have no idea why every is so worked up over that word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.... could it be because you knowingly and willfully used people's misuse of the word to score a cheap rhetorical point?
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 02 2008,22:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).

MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Skatje wrote that post the first of October, and I've never mentioned it until everyone thought Sal was some kind of demented villian for suggesting that bestiality might be considered acceptable from an evolutionary standpoint.  Of course it is...we are part of the animal world and there is no reason why a person shouldn't engage in that type of behavior *if they want to*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PZ is absolutely wrong.  I’m not insinuating that “Darwinists” are immoral.  I couldn’t possibly insinuate that because I know many, and they are certainly not immoral. What I am saying is that from an philosophical naturalist’s point of view, there is absolutely no reason why one shouldn’t engage in bestiality and incest if they *want to*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From an atheist's stance, evolution certainly does affect morality and how we "fuck".  We evolved from the animal world and morals and "fucking" evolved along with it.

How dense can you be?  There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.

I'm having trouble reconciling these posts with one another. Apart from contradicting each other, the third one actually seems to contradict itself within the space of a few sentences.

Also:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They will. It's part of being exposed to educated people, there are a good chunk of open atheists.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,22:55

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,22:38)
r-e-a-d-t-h-i-s-v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y-s-o-i-t-c-a-n-s-i-n-k-i-n



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.  That sort of topic has the same relationship to [the science of understanding the relationships between organisms via common descent and natural selection] as does a sculpture made from the pubic hair of Franciscan nuns to the statue of liberty.

It's like blaming the inventor of language (hmmm, let's see, that would be Yahweh, two times:  Eden and Babel) for Two Live Crew or Celine Dion.  Are you stupid enough to be willing to do that?  I imagine that you can probably believe that it is true and not true, simultaneously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, man.  What is wrong with you?  For the atheist, morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 02 2008,23:00

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:55)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 02 2008,22:38)
r-e-a-d-t-h-i-s-v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y-s-o-i-t-c-a-n-s-i-n-k-i-n

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.  That sort of topic has the same relationship to [the science of understanding the relationships between organisms via common descent and natural selection] as does a sculpture made from the pubic hair of Franciscan nuns to the statue of liberty.

It's like blaming the inventor of language (hmmm, let's see, that would be Yahweh, two times:  Eden and Babel) for Two Live Crew or Celine Dion.  Are you stupid enough to be willing to do that?  I imagine that you can probably believe that it is true and not true, simultaneously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, man.  What is wrong with you?  For the atheist, morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well. Some people evolved social skills...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:04

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,22:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:45)
 
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I can't help it if people don't know the definition of condone.  In fact, in my dictionary the definition I used is the only one available.  

Same < here >.  

I have no idea why every is so worked up over that word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.... could it be because you knowingly and willfully used people's misuse of the word to score a cheap rhetorical point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're kidding me right?  Trying to get a rise out me or what?  I'm talking to professors and supposed highly educated people.  My word usage was entirely accurate, and I was confused from the start as to why there was such a freak fest over it.  I have no idea why so many people don't know the definition of "condone", but their ignorance can't be blamed on me.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 02 2008,23:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,20:33)
         
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 02 2008,21:31)
           
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Which goes along with the rest of her post perfectly!  Yay!

So whats your point, FtK?  Did PZ peg ya wrong?  Explain it to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know! I know!

"YOU ATHIESTS ARE ALL HORRIBLE WICKED PEOPLE!!! DARWINISM IS WRONG!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Did I guess right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot < too ugly to get into Playboy >, and < too ugly to get a guy >. DaveScot can see me through his telescope from Austin, TX, and he knows all about who I, being an animal, [don't] fuck. Enjoy the company you keep, FTK.

Here, FTK, I'll be the first to < link to my own "advocacy" of bestiality >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'll go out on a limb and say, I'd sooner support love between a human and an animal than hatred between human beings, as Salvador Cordova does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, that should give you everything you need to really lay into me now. I hate no one. And that makes me immoral. Hell, this is church all over again. People who don't hate have no moral values. Just ask Sal Cordova.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should we desire the enemies of the Christian faith speak well of us. Their hatred of us is a good thing. It is a sign you’re on the side of what is right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, see ya. I have to go shame my family now by working on my paper about Carol Kuhlthau's ISP (information search process). I'm trying to make the library more user-friendly, without invoking God, of course.

I don't need reminding from you, FTK, that people in the United States don't understand and will never be proud of "bizarros" like me. They'd much rather growl at Nobel Prize winners (Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc.) and get all depressed because the evidence shows that a deity didn't murder His little creatures with a worldwide flood. I'm a terrible person, because I don't think you're inherently sinful or in need of any saving from a disobedient act that never happened. Run, run, run away from my poisonous idea that we have a short time on earth to make a contribution. As for me, I need a diet from castigation, if you please.

I mean, your message is not exactly new for me, you know? In fact it's kind of something I've heard all my life. Sometimes I think these people would prefer me if I did drugs or had an unwanted pregnancy or were in prison for murder instead of being an atheist with an excellent academic record and a good work ethic. I really don't get it, but that's okay.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:17)
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt they'll be off to Baylor, or Dembski's place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More likely K-State.  Dave will probably be the lucky duck that gets to educate my children.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,23:09

Please tell me what else, for the atheist that is, is true.

also, please tell me just how you know this.  let's start with the above statement.  

How is it, for the atheist, that "morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills"?  Do you mind explaining this?  Is morality like your appendix?  Is it like genital warts, that you contract from others?  Is morality like having ten fingers?  What?  I think you are full of shit, and here is where you get your chance to show how smart you are.

Or not.  But please do tell.  I'm waiting with baited breath, my piranha.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,23:11

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:55)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 02 2008,22:38)
r-e-a-d-t-h-i-s-v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y-s-o-i-t-c-a-n-s-i-n-k-i-n

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.  That sort of topic has the same relationship to [the science of understanding the relationships between organisms via common descent and natural selection] as does a sculpture made from the pubic hair of Franciscan nuns to the statue of liberty.

It's like blaming the inventor of language (hmmm, let's see, that would be Yahweh, two times:  Eden and Babel) for Two Live Crew or Celine Dion.  Are you stupid enough to be willing to do that?  I imagine that you can probably believe that it is true and not true, simultaneously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, man.  What is wrong with you?  For the atheist, morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, indeed. Erasmus spelled out "Read this very slowly so it can sink in", hoping that you just might once get the point, FtK. Sadly, it was not to be.

Let's try again.

You said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
here are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erasmus said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(this was right after he said, "Read this very slowly so it can sink in")

You respond with:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is wrong with you?  For the atheist, morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you understand that there is a difference between "evolution" and "biological evolution"?

The fact that languages and societal norms evolve don't have anything whatsoever to do with biological evolution.

Look up the word "evolution" in your ever-loving dictionary. It's located somewhere between the words "anus" and "perineum".
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,23:18

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:17)
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt they'll be off to Baylor, or Dembski's place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More likely K-State.  Dave will probably be the lucky duck that gets to educate my children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just plain silly. All that effort sheltering them from reality down the drain!

You should home grad-school them, leveraging the genius of physics redefining A-getting Sal cordova, the legal nous of Barry A, the Hard SciFiScience of DaveScot and the Fig newton of info theory, Doc-Doc-Billy-Dee.

Imagine the career in engineering / clueless op-ed penning!

< http://folkmusic.com/MP3/Monkeys.mp3 >
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,23:20

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:04)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,22:50)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:45)
   
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I can't help it if people don't know the definition of condone.  In fact, in my dictionary the definition I used is the only one available.  

Same < here >.  

I have no idea why every is so worked up over that word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.... could it be because you knowingly and willfully used people's misuse of the word to score a cheap rhetorical point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're kidding me right?  Trying to get a rise out me or what?  I'm talking to professors and supposed highly educated people.  My word usage was entirely accurate, and I was confused from the start as to why there was such a freak fest over it.  I have no idea why so many people don't know the definition of "condone", but their ignorance can't be blamed on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, FtK, I'm not trying to get a rise out you. Considering your seemingly permanent state of agitation, I don't wish to exacerbate things.

But FFS, a few hours after incorygible came to your defense regarding the use of the word "condone", you left this turd at PZ's blog:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You even added the odd emphasis on the word "condones". Someone here noted that you were taking up the discussion at PZ's blog as if nothing had ever taken place here.

I knew what you were up to the minute I saw your post at Pharyngula.

If that "gets a rise" out of you, so be it. We'll just add some more lumber to the cross you've decided to call home.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,23:22

The catholic church believes in evolution, but finds condones evil.

All Praise St. Dr. Zaius.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:27

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 02 2008,23:04)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,20:33)
           
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 02 2008,21:31)
             
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:11)
Dave: < Here >, comment 29.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Which goes along with the rest of her post perfectly!  Yay!

So whats your point, FtK?  Did PZ peg ya wrong?  Explain it to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know! I know!

"YOU ATHIESTS ARE ALL HORRIBLE WICKED PEOPLE!!! DARWINISM IS WRONG!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Did I guess right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot < too ugly to get into Playboy >, and < too ugly to get a guy >. DaveScot can see me through his telescope from Austin, TX, and he knows all about who I, being an animal, [don't] fuck. Enjoy the company you keep, FTK.

Here, FTK, I'll be the first to < link to my own "advocacy" of bestiality >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'll go out on a limb and say, I'd sooner support love between a human and an animal than hatred between human beings, as Salvador Cordova does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, that should give you everything you need to really lay into me now. I hate no one. And that makes me immoral. Hell, this is church all over again. People who don't hate have no moral values. Just ask Sal Cordova.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should we desire the enemies of the Christian faith speak well of us. Their hatred of us is a good thing. It is a sign you’re on the side of what is right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, see ya. I have to go shame my family now by working on my paper about Carol Kuhlthau's ISP (information search process). I'm trying to make the library more user-friendly, without invoking God, of course.

I don't need reminding from you, FTK, that people in the United States don't understand and will never be proud of "bizarros" like me. They'd much rather growl at Nobel Prize winners (Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc.) and get all depressed because the evidence shows that a deity didn't murder His little creatures with a worldwide flood. I'm a terrible person, because I don't think you're inherently sinful or in need of any saving from a disobedient act that never happened. Run, run, run away from my poisonous idea that we have a short time on earth to make a contribution. As for me, I need a diet from castigation, if you please.

I mean, your message is not exactly new for me, you know? In fact it's kind of something I've heard all my life. Sometimes I think these people would prefer me if I did drugs or had an unwanted pregnancy or were in prison for murder instead of being an atheist with an excellent academic record and a good work ethic. I really don't get it, but that's okay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply unbelieveable.  I've watched you cut at Christians endless times at your blog, and yet you have the audacity to go after me for being honest.  Every single word I wrote today was backed up with facts.  I can't help it if you're defensive for how other people have treated you.  I've always treated you with respect.  

Assi, I apologize, but I've got to get some sleep.  I'll have to put your post off until another day.  I had no idea that people would be so irrate with me for stating the facts.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:30

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,23:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:04)
 
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,22:50)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:45)
   
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,20:02)
I'm a little perplexed that someone who's just had trouble with the definition of the word "condone" would continue using it in the exact same context in a different place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I can't help it if people don't know the definition of condone.  In fact, in my dictionary the definition I used is the only one available.  

Same < here >.  

I have no idea why every is so worked up over that word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.... could it be because you knowingly and willfully used people's misuse of the word to score a cheap rhetorical point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're kidding me right?  Trying to get a rise out me or what?  I'm talking to professors and supposed highly educated people.  My word usage was entirely accurate, and I was confused from the start as to why there was such a freak fest over it.  I have no idea why so many people don't know the definition of "condone", but their ignorance can't be blamed on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, FtK, I'm not trying to get a rise out you. Considering your seemingly permanent state of agitation, I don't wish to exacerbate things.

But FFS, a few hours after incorygible came to your defense regarding the use of the word "condone", you left this turd at PZ's blog:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You even added the odd emphasis on the word "condones". Someone here noted that you were taking up the discussion at PZ's blog as if nothing had ever taken place here.

I knew what you were up to the minute I saw your post at Pharyngula.

If that "gets a rise" out of you, so be it. We'll just add some more lumber to the cross you've decided to call home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just because Dave and OM didn't know the definition of the word certainly shouldn't mean that no one knows the definition.  

IMHO, it's the best definition to use in this case.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,23:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skatje. That's what her whole post was about. You know, the thing that helped set off this whole kerfuffle?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 02 2008,23:33

waaaaaaah

here is your manbeast morals, on the cross.



Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:34

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,23:09)
Please tell me what else, for the atheist that is, is true.

also, please tell me just how you know this.  let's start with the above statement.  

How is it, for the atheist, that "morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills"?  Do you mind explaining this?  Is morality like your appendix?  Is it like genital warts, that you contract from others?  Is morality like having ten fingers?  What?  I think you are full of shit, and here is where you get your chance to show how smart you are.

Or not.  But please do tell.  I'm waiting with baited breath, my piranha.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If morality didn't evolve along with everything else in the world, how did our sense of what is right a wrong take root?  

Did God just *poof* your sense of morality into your mind out of no where?

I can't even believe you are questioning me about this.  It's as though some of you have never even thought about this issue.  Of course morality evolved.  There is no way around that fact.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 02 2008,23:37

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,23:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skatje. That's what her whole post was about. You know, the thing that helped set off this whole kerfuffle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not what I was refering to when I stated that PZ was intolerant are you know that.   I've been reading his blog for 3 years and there is not a week that goes by without him displaying horrific intolerance against religion.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2008,23:42

Are you intolerant towards bigots, FtK?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,23:44

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:30)
Just because Dave and OM didn't know the definition of the word certainly shouldn't mean that no one knows the definition.  

IMHO, it's the best definition to use in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said otherwise. What I implied was that you knew that people were going to misinterpret your use of the word "condone" by conflating it with the word "advocates" and you used the word hoping to score a cheap rhetorical point.

If you were at all capable of discussing the morality or immorality of bestiality beyond some vague "icky feeling", this never would have happened, FtK.

Sure, it sucks that you got banned at Pharyngula, but look at this way: now you can spend more time with us.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2008,23:46

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,00:44)
Sure, it sucks that you got banned at Pharyngula, but look at this way: now you can spend more time with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh joy.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,23:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:37)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,23:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skatje. That's what her whole post was about. You know, the thing that helped set off this whole kerfuffle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not what I was refering to when I stated that PZ was intolerant are you know that.   I've been reading his blog for 3 years and there is not a week that goes by without him displaying horrific intolerance against religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is you who hasn't been following the conversation. It started with PZ writing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tolerance in this sense is the same as your use of the word 'condone,' ie, allow without interference of legal force. I know this because that's what Skatje said, and this statement is meant as a source of agreement with Skatje's comments.

Then you rebutted,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

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



If you were using the same definition of (in)tolerance as PZ, my retort is wholly appropriate. If you are using a different definition of tolerance than PZ (such as using it to mean 'respect'), then I hope it is because you have misread PZ's intentions.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 02 2008,23:54

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,23:46)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,00:44)
Sure, it sucks that you got banned at Pharyngula, but look at this way: now you can spend more time with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What can I say? I only use teh Tard on a recreational basis, but I'm severely addicted to Dembski's Friday Meltdowns. FtK keeps the shakes away during those lean times.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2008,23:55

Oh, and as for this [QUOTE][quote] (Skatje paragraph on people's relationships with their pets

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, let's go right to the horse's mouth  :p

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Emphasis in original)
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 03 2008,00:25

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,23:55)
Oh, and as for this [QUOTE][quote] (Skatje paragraph on people's relationships with their pets

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, let's go right to the horse's mouth  :p  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Emphasis in original)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm gonna tell PZ you called his daughter a horse.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,04:53

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:17)
I’m not insinuating that “Darwinists” are immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure you are. When you say, for example:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,04:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:55)
Good grief, man.  What is wrong with you?  For the atheist, morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go < here >, where I report my opinion that this issue is much more complex than you suggest, with important elements that cannot be attributed to evolution.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,04:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:30)
Just because Dave and OM didn't know the definition of the word certainly shouldn't mean that no one knows the definition.  

IMHO, it's the best definition to use in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You misrepresentations are legendary.

I simply asked you to support your point with a relevant quote and you did so. I asked where the word "condone" appeared in the text. As it did not, you had to *think* about what part of the text to use to support your case. However, on PZ's blog you had to quote the whole text. Interesting.

And FTK, when you say things like "everything I've said here today is backed up by facts" it rings kinda hollow when typically everything you say normally you claim is backed up by facts and yet you give no backing support to those claims despite repeated requests.

So, FTK, one more time, could you tell me where Walt notes that he's had his work peer-reviewed? If all you said is supported by facts then you can simply tell me the URL where Walt notes he had his work peer-reviewed.

Or admit you were mistaken.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,05:08

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:17)
Skatje went much farther than advocating that it’s okay for it to be legal.  She went as far as stating that this type of relationship with your pet could be very meaningful:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IMHO you are misreading this passage. She is here stating that we often have deep and meaningful relationships with our pets, which is true, and that we should not be surprised when those already emotionally intimate relationships become sexual. She is not stating that any such sexual encounters are themselves necessarily deep and meaningful, nor advocating them.  

Her essay could be more clearly written and I think in some respects invites this misunderstanding. It does "sound like" she is advocating these encounters, but with careful reading you can see that she is NOT. Moreover, she has clarified the intent of her essay and that should be that.

For some reason, you just don't seem to be able to leave it there. And the reason is your investment in Sal Cordova, who by repeating his strange assertions in various ways makes it clear that he is NOT being misunderstood.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,06:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:30)
Just because Dave and OM didn't know the definition of the word certainly shouldn't mean that no one knows the definition.  

IMHO, it's the best definition to use in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney.

As two different people pointed out, there are (at least) two acceptable definitions. My definition and oldman's definition is just as valid as FtK's definition, we just didn't know how she was using it.  I'm pretty damn sure that I know that word's definition, and probably a lot more definitions of words that FtK misuses all the time. In fact, my conversations with her started with her misuse of the word "random".

Did you get that, FtK? Ironically, this is the first time on this board that two different things can be equally valid, and you missed it.

As for incest, I found that comment right after I posted the last comment. So thanks. As others have mentioned, there is little there to bash Skatje for.

But even more importantly, the example of incest might not be the best one for your purposes of yammering about god-given moral codes vs. evolution. There are good biological reasons why incest is not good for a species, and thus good biological reasons why an aversion to incest might have evolved. Yet in the science book that you choose, your god CONDONES incest at least twice. If you read Genesis, in fact, you will have to conclude that your god DEMANDED incest, since he left the offspring of Adam and Eve no choice but to have intercourse with their siblings.

A rational person, of course, would look at this EVIDENCE and conclude that an evolutionary explanation of an aversion to incest makes more sense than the god-given explanation, which in fact condones it. I am therefore expecting no such response from FtK.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,06:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:28)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 02 2008,21:45)
Jesus, Lady (Jesus-Lady), you are a freak.  

THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT FROM WHICH MORALS ABOUT HORSE FUCKING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FUCKING ARE DERIVED

It has nothing to do with it.  it is simple.  You know this, and that makes you a liar.  And a stupid one too, because you can't even keep a straight face while you do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT FROM WHICH MORALS ABOUT HORSE FUCKING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FUCKING ARE DERIVED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From an atheist's stance, evolution certainly does affect morality and how we "fuck".  We evolved from the animal world and morals and "fucking" evolved along with it.  

How dense can you be?  There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My GOD Ftk!!! I explained multiple times why that is bullshit, but you simply ignore it. How dense can you be?? Darwinism is science, and science describes phenomenon like morality, it does NOT dictate morality.
I'll repeat myself again, how the hell can we discuss this with you if you miss vital parts of knowledge about evolution, Darwinism and science itself??
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 03 2008,07:06

I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.

Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,07:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooo now I really feel insulted :p
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,07:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,05:34)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 02 2008,23:09)
Please tell me what else, for the atheist that is, is true.

also, please tell me just how you know this.  let's start with the above statement.  

How is it, for the atheist, that "morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills"?  Do you mind explaining this?  Is morality like your appendix?  Is it like genital warts, that you contract from others?  Is morality like having ten fingers?  What?  I think you are full of shit, and here is where you get your chance to show how smart you are.

Or not.  But please do tell.  I'm waiting with baited breath, my piranha.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If morality didn't evolve along with everything else in the world, how did our sense of what is right a wrong take root?  

Did God just *poof* your sense of morality into your mind out of no where?

I can't even believe you are questioning me about this.  It's as though some of you have never even thought about this issue.  Of course morality evolved.  There is no way around that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You really don't understand any form of moral thought that doesn't rely on an unchanging deity type system, do you?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,07:19

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking the same thing before I went to her site - then I saw that she is more than capable of defending her position.

However, I have a feeling that her article is ultimately going to reach the wrong audience - it's already being discussed at Vox Day's site - and she's not going to be dealing with poorly reasoned arguments, she's going to be dealing with death threats and rape fantasies.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,07:24

FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 03 2008,07:25

Mister DNA,

Right--it is not that she (or other minors) cannot defend their arguments skillfully--it's just that there is something yecch about arguing with a minor the same way as one argues with an adult. With no better line of demarcation, I simply use the imperfect age-eighteen threshold.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,07:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know what?  Whether these acts are "banned" or not was never even the point!  I never *once* talked about legality in *any* of my posts in regard to this issue.  Skatje wrote that post on zoophilia in reponse to a post of mine about homosexuals being involved in a huge sex fest.  She commented at *my* blog first, and then wrote a post of her own on the conversation that transpired.  *She* came to my blog.  

This is about morality and behavior, not legality!  Hell, I wouldn't call for these acts to be deemed "illegal"!  As a Christian, I have absolutely *no* right to make someone follow a specific path of morality.  

You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.

I've also *never* said that atheists are immoral.  Again, the point is missed.  I'm saying that morals evolved, that they are not absolute, and that they can certainly change as people become more accepting of a variety of behaviors.  There is no moral base in an evolving morality.  

PZ & Skatje framed the argument from a legal standpoint and that is *not* the point and never has been.  They both know that.  Neither did Sal write *anything* about legal rights about personal acts.

I've not read anything by Heddle's post as it's toward the end of this thread, and I'm in a hurry this morning.  So don't start complaining about me not answering other questions.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,07:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:33)
I've also *never* said that atheists are immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't like us much though, do you?

I mean, you've condemned us, in your own mind at least, to hell. How loving, exactly, is that?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,07:47

FtK blithered:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm saying that morals evolved, that they are not absolute, and that they can certainly change as people become more accepting of a variety of behaviors.  There is no moral base in an evolving morality.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Forgetting this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,07:47

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,07:48

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,07:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:33)
I've also *never* said that atheists are immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't like us much though, do you?

I mean, you've condemned us, in your own mind at least, to hell. How loving, exactly, is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excuse me?  How have I *condemned* you to hell?  And, if I didn't like you people, why ON earth would I be here posting and trying my damnedest to try to explain that the religious people that *I* know are nothing like the people you all describe.

You, of all people, should know that I don't dislike you.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,07:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know what?  Whether these acts are "banned" or not was never even the point!  I never *once* talked about legality in *any* of my posts in regard to this issue.  Skatje wrote that post on zoophilia in reponse to a post of mine about homosexuals being involved in a huge sex fest.  She commented at *my* blog first, and then wrote a post of her own on the conversation that transpired.  *She* came to my blog.  

This is about morality and behavior, not legality!  Hell, I wouldn't call for these acts to be deemed "illegal"!  As a Christian, I have absolutely *no* right to make someone follow a specific path of morality.  

You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.

I've also *never* said that atheists are immoral.  Again, the point is missed.  I'm saying that morals evolved, that they are not absolute, and that they can certainly change as people become more accepting of a variety of behaviors.  There is no moral base in an evolving morality.  

PZ & Skatje framed the argument from a legal standpoint and that is *not* the point and never has been.  They both know that.  Neither did Sal write *anything* about legal rights about personal acts.

I've not read anything by Heddle's post as it's toward the end of this thread, and I'm in a hurry this morning.  So don't start complaining about me not answering other questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it moral to lie by omission?

For example, if somebody claimed something and then refused to provide proof that they were telling the truth when asked?

Is it moral to let a lie stand without correction?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,08:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:48)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,07:40)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:33)
I've also *never* said that atheists are immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't like us much though, do you?

I mean, you've condemned us, in your own mind at least, to hell. How loving, exactly, is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excuse me?  How have I *condemned* you to hell?  And, if I didn't like you people, why ON earth would I be here posting and trying my damnedest to try to explain that the religious people that *I* know are nothing like the people you all describe.

You, of all people, should know that I don't dislike you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't dislike us personally, that's probably true (except certain cases).

However, your faith condems us (all atheists, everywhere) to hell. It says so, right in the bible.

Afterall....





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: slpage on Jan. 03 2008,08:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,07:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sick, isn't it, what religious zeal, stupidity, and hubris can do to a person?

So, Sally boy gets an A in a college class and feels the need to boast about it on his website.

I'll bet he'll be using that grade to 'prove' that he is an expert on all things scientific...

Wait - he does that anyway, because he had a music minor ...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,08:11

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:33)
PZ & Skatje framed the argument from a legal standpoint and that is *not* the point and never has been.  They both know that.  Neither did Sal write *anything* about legal rights about personal acts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is exactly the problem.

Skatje wrote about legality originally.

Sal and FtK translated legality to morality, as is standard in the biblical frame of reference.

The specific points that Skatje raised were never addressed by Sal or FtK, in their rush to make jokes about the morality of the offspring of "religion bashers". Indeed, it's true; Sal did not write anything about legal rights, But if he was truly responding to the arguments in Skatje's comments he should have.

Instead he used quotemining and innuendo to make a cheap point about his morality. Which speaks volumes about his morality, in a way that is not flattering to him.

FtK, if you could ever actually read, with comprehension, other people's writings and respond to their words rather than the words you wish they had written from their evil atheistic darwinian perspective, you could play a big role in your own education. In this instance, if you would have made an effort to understand Skatje's points, which were based on a legal (not moral) viewpoint, you would not have sicced Sal on her, and he would not have followed your lead down his own particular toilet.

There's a lesson here, but I doubt you can see it, since it was written by someone with an evil atheistic darwinian perspective. I can't wait to see how you will twist it.
Posted by: ERV on Jan. 03 2008,08:16

Hmm.  Well, Sal gave a hat-tip to FtK.  Did he follow this interaction on your blog, or did you email him about it?

If its email, why dont you take screen shots, with dates, of your email exchange with Sal and we can all see how it was about 'personal morality and how we establish our morals' and not getting cheap points against Skatje.

Not that that will entirely help you, as 'personal morality' makes no sense when applied to Skatje's post... Im just trying to help you out, FtK, as your actions the past couple of days have gone well past disgusting, and are nearing unforgivable.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:22

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,04:53)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:17)
I’m not insinuating that “Darwinists” are immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure you are. When you say, for example:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


How is that stating that Darwinists are immoral?  Do you lump all Darwinists in a big category like you do "creationists"?  

I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.

Ted Haggard was involved in immoral behavior *in my book*.  He was a Christian, and most atheists recognized that, from a Christian perspective, he was living immorally due to his involvement in homosexuality and having sex with someone other than his spouse.  Yet, from the atheist standpoint, the argument was not against morality, but rather hypocrisy.
Posted by: ERV on Jan. 03 2008,08:24

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SAL-- I’m refraining from commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,08:30

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22)
I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.

If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,08:31

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:11)
FtK, if you could ever actually read, with comprehension, other people's writings and respond to their words rather than the words you wish they had written from their evil atheistic darwinian perspective, you could play a big role in your own education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, see, that is your fault, too.

If you hadn't forced her to keep her religion in the basement, she would have read for better comprehension.  The lighting down there is positively horrible.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,07:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he didn't go after Skatje.  *I* wrote the post about Skatje, and he pulled a quote from it.  

Skatje is the one who came to *MY* blog to complain about *my* beliefs about what *is* and *is* not immoral.    Nobody when after Skatje...she's a big girl and she surfs the creationists blogs just like the rest of you.  She decided to park a comment at my place that wasn't ignored.
Posted by: ERV on Jan. 03 2008,08:33

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:31)
Skatje is the one who came to *MY* blog to complain about *my* beliefs about what *is* and *is* not immoral.    Nobody when after Skatje...she's a big girl and she surfs the creationists blogs just like the rest of you.  She decided to park a comment at my place that wasn't ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unlike everyone elses posts that are just deleted-->banned.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,08:33

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:30)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22)
I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.

If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why she seems to reserve special bitterness for Wes, who, as a professed Christian, is seen as a traitor to the cause.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:40

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:30)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22)
I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.

If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, atheism is not equivalent to evolution.  Obviously, many people of a variety of religious beliefs believe that evolution was instigated by a designer.

The point is that, for the atheist, morals are the direct result of evolution.  Do you see the difference?  

Yes, for the atheist, eveything is the result of the process of an evolving world.   But, the ToE itself is not atheistic.  It depends on your interpretation and your beliefs.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 03 2008,08:41

FtK wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, from the atheist standpoint, the argument was not against morality, but rather hypocrisy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, FtK, you idiot, from ANY standpoint the argument against Haggard is hypocrisy.  Privately, Haggard was engaging in behavior that he vehemently opposed publicly.

And, since you are a self-proclaimed expert on standpoints what would be the Buddhist standpoint?

Don't think too hard about it, FtK.  Just make something up for our amusement.  It's working for you so far.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:44

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:30)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22)
I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.

If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why she seems to reserve special bitterness for Wes, who, as a professed Christian, is seen as a traitor to the cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue.  I resent Wes because he was part of an organization that works overtime at condemning anything that does not fall within their dogma of what science is and is not.  NSCE along with KCFS were responsible for feeding the public with completely inaccurate information about what was occuring here in Kansas in regard to the science standards debacle.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:51

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,05:08)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:17)
Skatje went much farther than advocating that it’s okay for it to be legal.  She went as far as stating that this type of relationship with your pet could be very meaningful:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IMHO you are misreading this passage. She is here stating that we often have deep and meaningful relationships with our pets, which is true, and that we should not be surprised when those already emotionally intimate relationships become sexual. She is not stating that any such sexual encounters are themselves necessarily deep and meaningful, nor advocating them.  

Her essay could be more clearly written and I think in some respects invites this misunderstanding. It does "sound like" she is advocating these encounters, but with careful reading you can see that she is NOT. Moreover, she has clarified the intent of her essay and that should be that.

For some reason, you just don't seem to be able to leave it there. And the reason is your investment in Sal Cordova, who by repeating his strange assertions in various ways makes it clear that he is NOT being misunderstood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, shame on you for taking this position.  It's bogus.  

If Sal had written the post Skatje did, do you suppose the Darwinists in the blogosphere would have ignored it?  Do you think it would not have shown up here at AtBC *IMMEDIATELY*?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,08:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:44)
Untrue.  I resent Wes because he was part of an organization that works overtime at condemning anything that does not fall within their dogma of what science is and is not.  NSCE along with KCFS were responsible for feeding the public with completely inaccurate information about what was occuring here in Kansas in regard to the science standards debacle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting. Presumably therefore you have already defined "what is science" and "what is not science".

Could you share your definitions with us?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,08:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:40)
The point is that, for the atheist, morals are the direct result of evolution.  Do you see the difference?  

Yes, for the atheist, eveything is the result of the process of an evolving world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. One is a religious (or areligious) perspective, the other is a scientific framework. Period. They are not linked by anything except your own wobbly synapses.

Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?  There are theists who have heard about evolution. Undoubtedly some of them understand that what we call "morals" may have arisen from natural, evolutionary processes, rather then being "god-given". If these things are true, there is no basis for the statement that "for the atheist, eveything (sic) is the result of the process of an evolving world."

It's a bogus linkage, and an argument from consequences. Give it up.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,08:56

Bill you wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It does "sound like" she is advocating these encounters, but with careful reading you can see that she is NOT. Moreover, she has clarified the intent of her essay and that should be that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It sounds exactly like she is advocating it for those who are into that type of thing.  Now she has "clarified" that that isn't exactly what she meant.  Fine.  We'll go with that angle now.  I wrote in regard to what she said, I told the truth, I didn't stretch anything, and I certainly did not lie.  Facts are facts and they are all in writing.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,08:59

If morals were really god-given and "immoral" people simply ignored them then logically there would be simply 2 groups of people.

a) Those who adhere to the god-given morals
b) Those who do not.

Logically all the people in group A would behave in the same way to the same stimulus?

And yet the world does not seem to be arranged like that. Therefore god did not give humans morals.

Er, ok, i'm no philosopher but....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,09:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:56)
Facts are facts and they are all in writing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also in writing that you stated that Walt had submitted his book for peer-review.

Yet you don't seem to be able to support that "fact".

Why not?

Some facts are more facty they others in the moral world you inhabit yeah?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 03 2008,09:14

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.


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



Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality.  A good argument.  One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim.  FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.  

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality).  This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 03 2008,09:22

I find myself starting off the year agreeing with Heddle!

This does not bode well for the space-time continuum.  Something is amiss!

Spock has a beard in my universe.  How about yours?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,09:24

Even if FtK denies that evolutionary theory = atheism, her lap-peccary Sal makes no bones about it. In a comment on his Skatje thread from yesterday, he opines  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only is Darwinism bad science which originated from the feeble mind of math-challenged Darwin, but it’s an icky ideology and view of humanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, we can already hear FtK telling us that "Darwinism" is not the same thing as evolutionary theory. Unfortunately for that perspective, she has been unable to provide any definition of Darwinism beyond the circular "it's an atheist philosophy". And note that Sal describes it as "science", albeit "bad".

Clearly Sal and FtK confuse science with religion regularly and transparently. If not, perhaps FtK can comment on YoungCosmos and point out Sal's error to him. Her recent comment here - "the ToE itself is not atheistic" would be sufficient.

Best of all, Sal also promises    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the popcorn?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,09:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???  This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.  

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation.  The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,09:35

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,09:24)
Best of all, Sal also promises    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the popcorn?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since the current discussion is obviously going absolutely nowhere, what does everybody think of dropping the topic and waiting until Sal posts again to post in this thread?  I'm sure he'll give us much to argue about.  

Just an idea.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,09:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???  This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.  

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation.  The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your position is that they have to wait for the bible to be written before god can infuse them with god-given morals right? right?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,09:48

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 03 2008,09:14)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.


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



Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality.  A good argument.  One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim.  FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.  

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality).  This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's interesting that you support Heddle but condemn me, because I completely agree with him...except for this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was not quote mining.  Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't.  Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.  

The rest of his post entailed a joke that was uncalled for.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,09:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,09:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???  This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.  

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation.  The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your position is that they have to wait for the bible to be written before god can infuse them with god-given morals right? right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.  They could certainly be living immorally, and IMHO, their lives would be enhanced by living according to biblical guidelines.  That is why there are missionaries thoroughout the world.  

And, there is absolutely no doubt that this conversation will now take the path of the immoral acts of various missionaries.  So, let me say upfront that sin affects everyone...EVERYONE...no one is immune, and some of the absolute nastiest people I've met are Christians.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 03 2008,09:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 03 2008,10:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
sin affects everyone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if God DID imbue people with morals then he didn't do a very good job then?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,10:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)
No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So then what use is the bible? If they are born so engraved why bother with the bible? Why is it needed for to have moral values? What's in the bible that's not engraved at birth then?
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.  They could certainly be living immorally, and IMHO, their lives would be enhanced by living according to biblical guidelines.  That is why there are missionaries thoroughout the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do know that missionaries f*cked up every single thing they touched? Missionaries are one of the most revolting groups of people in the world. Do you know perhaps about the ethical politics from Holland in there Indonesian colonies back in the mid-20th century? That's a nice example.
But why would the biblical guidelines be better? At least the OT promotes incest (afterall, how the hell do you make a world population from 6 billion from 2 in just 6000 years?), killing other people is promoted, lots of immoral things are promoted. Are there good things in the bible? Yes, ofcourse. Love thy enemy, love thy neighbore. Nothing bad about that. The thing is, why do I need the bible for that? I can make up those things with simple logic.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,10:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,10:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)
No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So then what use is the bible? If they are born so engraved why bother with the bible? Why is it needed for to have moral values? What's in the bible that's not engraved at birth then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We need the Bible so that we can determine the age of the earth, silly!
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 03 2008,10:16

You guys aren’t going to flipping believe < this >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science

I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization….
if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Winston Churchill before the House of Commons calling upon the citizens to resist the Nazi Darwinists in 1940.

The irony is the world’s leading atheist, Dick Dawkins, calls himself a Churchillian (after Winston Churchill). This rhetoric form Dawkins is Orwellian Doublespeak and revisionist history. Churchill stood for the defense of Christian civilization, not the destruction of Christian civilization as Dick Dawkins advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:O WTF?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,10:25

Quote (ERV @ Jan. 03 2008,08:16)
Hmm.  Well, Sal gave a hat-tip to FtK.  Did he follow this interaction on your blog, or did you email him about it?

If its email, why dont you take screen shots, with dates, of your email exchange with Sal and we can all see how it was about 'personal morality and how we establish our morals' and not getting cheap points against Skatje.

Not that that will entirely help you, as 'personal morality' makes no sense when applied to Skatje's post... Im just trying to help you out, FtK, as your actions the past couple of days have gone well past disgusting, and are nearing unforgivable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I POST at his blog, and he READ the information there.  The quote he refered to was posted by *me*, right before his post in question.  It is *obvious* that Sal is refering to 'personal morality and how we establish our morals'.  The problem was how he went about it.  Joking about it is not the way to handle such a flammable topic.  There were no "cheap points" to score against Skatje because we were merely relaying her beliefs on the topic.  Are you telling me, ERV, that if Sal had written the post on zoophilia that Skatje wrote you would not have commented on it?  I highly doubt any of you would have let that one go by.

Absolutely no emails have been exchanged between us in regard to this issue whatsoever.  Sal and I rarely email each other.  He asked me once if I would post at YC for a while, and I said sure.  We then had *one* phone conversation so that he could explain to me how to use the blog (first time I've ever talked to him).  I think we've exchanged maybe three or four emails since then in regard to how to get something posted properly.

I haven't emailed him since I told him about a month ago that I was taking a break from posting until after Christmas.  The only exchange between Sal and I in regard to this latest little blow up is what you have seen at YC.  

BTW, I have done nothing disgusting.  Again, I have not lied, twisted or name called.  I have provided the facts and backed them up with links every single time.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,10:30

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 03 2008,10:16)
You guys aren’t going to flipping believe < this >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science

I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization….
if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Winston Churchill before the House of Commons calling upon the citizens to resist the Nazi Darwinists in 1940.

The irony is the world’s leading atheist, Dick Dawkins, calls himself a Churchillian (after Winston Churchill). This rhetoric form Dawkins is Orwellian Doublespeak and revisionist history. Churchill stood for the defense of Christian civilization, not the destruction of Christian civilization as Dick Dawkins advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:O WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently Churchill was an avowed atheist too. No reference to hand for that, I read it on a different blog yesterday.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2008,10:32

< http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Winston_Churchill >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the website of the Churchill Centre, which promotes Churchill's principles, he is described as "having made so many deposits in the bank of Religion" as a youth, that he had been "confidently withdrawing from it ever since, never bothering to check the balance--there might indeed be an overdraft."

In the same article, he is referenced as writing that he was a "optimistic agnostic." and "not a pillar of the Church but more of a flying buttress--I support it from the outside."

This presumably qualifies him for either the agnostic or ambiguous categories.


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


Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 03 2008,10:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys aren’t going to flipping believe this!

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



Sal being a dick?  I believe it.   ???
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2008,10:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:25)
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 03 2008,08:16)
Hmm.  Well, Sal gave a hat-tip to FtK.  Did he follow this interaction on your blog, or did you email him about it?

If its email, why dont you take screen shots, with dates, of your email exchange with Sal and we can all see how it was about 'personal morality and how we establish our morals' and not getting cheap points against Skatje.

Not that that will entirely help you, as 'personal morality' makes no sense when applied to Skatje's post... Im just trying to help you out, FtK, as your actions the past couple of days have gone well past disgusting, and are nearing unforgivable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I POST at his blog, and he READ the information there.  The quote he refered to was posted by *me*, right before his post in question.  It is *obvious* that Sal is refering to 'personal morality and how we establish our morals'.  The problem was how he went about it.  Joking about it is not the way to handle such a flammable topic.  There were no "cheap points" to score against Skatje because we were merely relaying her beliefs on the topic.  Are you telling me, ERV, that if Sal had written the post on zoophilia that Skatje wrote you would not have commented on it?  I highly doubt any of you would have let that one go by.

Absolutely no emails have been exchanged between us in regard to this issue whatsoever.  Sal and I rarely email each other.  He asked me once if I would post at YC for a while, and I said sure.  We then had *one* phone conversation so that he could explain to me how to use the blog (first time I've ever talked to him).  I think we've exchanged maybe three or four emails since then in regard to how to get something posted properly.

I haven't emailed him since I told him about a month ago that I was taking a break from posting until after Christmas.  The only exchange between Sal and I in regard to this latest little blow up is what you have seen at YC.  

BTW, I have done nothing disgusting.  Again, I have not lied, twisted or name called.  I have provided the facts and backed them up with links every single time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK - Let's assume that everything you say here in your latest post is correct.  

It then becomes a matter of the friends you choose, and if you choose to support Sal, you should not be surprised that you get tarred with the same brush.

If you "condone" Sal and all his Super Sliminess, you pay the price.  It's a simple choice really.  You can choose back a proven quote-mining lying slimeball sleaze like Sal, that just happens to be a Christian, or back us honest, forthright, atheistic and Christian evolutionists and stand against Sal and his Evil Forces Of Sliminess.

You choose.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,10:41

Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is common sense, how do we recognize it, and how did we aquire it?
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,10:42

But, Ftk, do you now understand why Sal's point about morality is complete and utter bullshit? Since we've explained a couple of times now.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,10:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But her post bloody well WAS about legality.

I know you aren't this stupid FtK, so I'm struggling to work out what the hell you're trying to do here.

Stating that something can, for an individual, be a "good thing" however you phrase it, and therefore should not be illegal is not in any way making any kind of point about the morality, which YOU mentioned.

On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,10:49

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 03 2008,10:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:25)
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 03 2008,08:16)
Hmm.  Well, Sal gave a hat-tip to FtK.  Did he follow this interaction on your blog, or did you email him about it?

If its email, why dont you take screen shots, with dates, of your email exchange with Sal and we can all see how it was about 'personal morality and how we establish our morals' and not getting cheap points against Skatje.

Not that that will entirely help you, as 'personal morality' makes no sense when applied to Skatje's post... Im just trying to help you out, FtK, as your actions the past couple of days have gone well past disgusting, and are nearing unforgivable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I POST at his blog, and he READ the information there.  The quote he refered to was posted by *me*, right before his post in question.  It is *obvious* that Sal is refering to 'personal morality and how we establish our morals'.  The problem was how he went about it.  Joking about it is not the way to handle such a flammable topic.  There were no "cheap points" to score against Skatje because we were merely relaying her beliefs on the topic.  Are you telling me, ERV, that if Sal had written the post on zoophilia that Skatje wrote you would not have commented on it?  I highly doubt any of you would have let that one go by.

Absolutely no emails have been exchanged between us in regard to this issue whatsoever.  Sal and I rarely email each other.  He asked me once if I would post at YC for a while, and I said sure.  We then had *one* phone conversation so that he could explain to me how to use the blog (first time I've ever talked to him).  I think we've exchanged maybe three or four emails since then in regard to how to get something posted properly.

I haven't emailed him since I told him about a month ago that I was taking a break from posting until after Christmas.  The only exchange between Sal and I in regard to this latest little blow up is what you have seen at YC.  

BTW, I have done nothing disgusting.  Again, I have not lied, twisted or name called.  I have provided the facts and backed them up with links every single time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK - Let's assume that everything you say here in your latest post is correct.  

It then becomes a matter of the friends you choose, and if you choose to support Sal, you should not be surprised that you get tarred with the same brush.

If you "condone" Sal and all his Super Sliminess, you pay the price.  It's a simple choice really.  You can choose back a proven quote-mining lying slimeball sleaze like Sal, that just happens to be a Christian, or back us honest, forthright, atheistic and Christian evolutionists and stand against Sal and his Evil Forces Of Sliminess.

You choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


J-Dog.  As I've said before, I am my own island, and that should be quite apparent.  I have condemned Sal for his attempt at humor, and I have condemned the D man himself for choices he's made in the past.  I CALL THEM LIKE I SEE THEM.  And, in this case, I am being completely honest in how I see this situation.  

I will side with whomever I think is correct depending upon the circumstance.  Is Sal perfect...good Lord no.  Am I?  Certainly not.  Are you guys all beyond reproach? No.

I think that Sal makes mistakes sometimes, and I think that all of you make mistakes sometimes.  I think that both sides are *highly* defensive, and don't consider their own actions often enough.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,10:52

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,10:42)
But, Ftk, do you now understand why Sal's point about morality is complete and utter bullshit? Since we've explained a couple of times now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what you're refering to in regard to "Sal's point".  I have been explaining *my* position on this subject and his post for a couple days now, and I do not believe what I've said is incorrect of "bullshit".
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,10:53

You're missing the point, we do not care about the words he chose, nor about his humor. We only care about his ridiculous point, and do you understand why that point is bullshit? I think we've explained why enough times.
Edit: You were slightly faster. I'll refer, again because you haven't reacted on it yet, to < this >.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,10:56

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:41)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is common sense, how do we recognize it, and how did we aquire it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense is a set of beliefs that are ingrained into a person in their early youth (more in some than others) along the lines of "eating this is bad" in combination with a set of sexual and interlectual basics picked up during the rest of a persons life.

They are culturally based, for the most part, and developed through a combination of influences.

They wre aquired similarly (at a guess), through a variety of measures, primarily a set of "do(n't) do this" survival rules, which has been added to by a sequence of cultural changes and religious (any number of different ones) additions to the majority belief/knowlege base.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,10:56

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:25)
I have provided the facts and backed them up with links every single time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can I haz a link to where Walt notes his work was peer-reviewed then?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,10:56

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:41)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is common sense, how do we recognize it, and how did we aquire it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never understood why fundies like to BRAG about not being able to make a move without the Bible telling them which way to go.

That's what this is -- FTK would be paralyzed without her childlike understanding of Christian Morality, and she assumes everyone else in the world suffers from this same disability.

It's related to Fundies who declare that without the fear of punishment by the Invisible Sky Daddy they'd go on killing sprees, and seem not to realize what this says about their character.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,10:58

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,10:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But her post bloody well WAS about legality.

I know you aren't this stupid FtK, so I'm struggling to work out what the hell you're trying to do here.

Stating that something can, for an individual, be a "good thing" however you phrase it, and therefore should not be illegal is not in any way making any kind of point about the morality, which YOU mentioned.

On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Ian, her entire post was not about legality, and I was never refering to the issue of legality.  My posts were in regard to the issue of morality and that is what I was focusing on in her views of the subject.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,10:59

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,10:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But her post bloody well WAS about legality.

I know you aren't this stupid FtK, so I'm struggling to work out what the hell you're trying to do here.

Stating that something can, for an individual, be a "good thing" however you phrase it, and therefore should not be illegal is not in any way making any kind of point about the morality, which YOU mentioned.

On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Ian, her entire post was not about legality, and I was never refering to the issue of legality.  My posts were in regard to the issue of morality and that is what I was focusing on in her views of the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice to see you ignored the second half of my post.

Well done.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,11:00

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,10:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:41)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is common sense, how do we recognize it, and how did we aquire it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense is a set of beliefs that are ingrained into a person in their early youth (more in some than others) along the lines of "eating this is bad" in combination with a set of sexual and interlectual basics picked up during the rest of a persons life.

They are culturally based, for the most part, and developed through a combination of influences.

They wre aquired similarly (at a guess), through a variety of measures, primarily a set of "do(n't) do this" survival rules, which has been added to by a sequence of cultural changes and religious (any number of different ones) additions to the majority belief/knowlege base.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good job.  They evolved...you have to take everything back to a first cause when considering where something came from.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2008,11:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 03 2008,10:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:25)
 
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 03 2008,08:16)
Hmm.  Well, Sal gave a hat-tip to FtK.  Did he follow this interaction on your blog, or did you email him about it?

If its email, why dont you take screen shots, with dates, of your email exchange with Sal and we can all see how it was about 'personal morality and how we establish our morals' and not getting cheap points against Skatje.

Not that that will entirely help you, as 'personal morality' makes no sense when applied to Skatje's post... Im just trying to help you out, FtK, as your actions the past couple of days have gone well past disgusting, and are nearing unforgivable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I POST at his blog, and he READ the information there.  The quote he refered to was posted by *me*, right before his post in question.  It is *obvious* that Sal is refering to 'personal morality and how we establish our morals'.  The problem was how he went about it.  Joking about it is not the way to handle such a flammable topic.  There were no "cheap points" to score against Skatje because we were merely relaying her beliefs on the topic.  Are you telling me, ERV, that if Sal had written the post on zoophilia that Skatje wrote you would not have commented on it?  I highly doubt any of you would have let that one go by.

Absolutely no emails have been exchanged between us in regard to this issue whatsoever.  Sal and I rarely email each other.  He asked me once if I would post at YC for a while, and I said sure.  We then had *one* phone conversation so that he could explain to me how to use the blog (first time I've ever talked to him).  I think we've exchanged maybe three or four emails since then in regard to how to get something posted properly.

I haven't emailed him since I told him about a month ago that I was taking a break from posting until after Christmas.  The only exchange between Sal and I in regard to this latest little blow up is what you have seen at YC.  

BTW, I have done nothing disgusting.  Again, I have not lied, twisted or name called.  I have provided the facts and backed them up with links every single time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK - Let's assume that everything you say here in your latest post is correct.  

It then becomes a matter of the friends you choose, and if you choose to support Sal, you should not be surprised that you get tarred with the same brush.

If you "condone" Sal and all his Super Sliminess, you pay the price.  It's a simple choice really.  You can choose back a proven quote-mining lying slimeball sleaze like Sal, that just happens to be a Christian, or back us honest, forthright, atheistic and Christian evolutionists and stand against Sal and his Evil Forces Of Sliminess.

You choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


J-Dog.  As I've said before, I am my own island, and that should be quite apparent.  I have condemned Sal for his attempt at humor, and I have condemned the D man himself for choices he's made in the past.  I CALL THEM LIKE I SEE THEM.  And, in this case, I am being completely honest in how I see this situation.  

I will side with whomever I think is correct depending upon the circumstance.  Is Sal perfect...good Lord no.  Am I?  Certainly not.  Are you guys all beyond reproach? No.

I think that Sal makes mistakes sometimes, and I think that all of you make mistakes sometimes.  I think that both sides are *highly* defensive, and don't consider their own actions often enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the headline will read:

FTK TURNS ON PAL- SLIMEY SAL HUNG OUT TO DRY

Dateline Kansas

In a remarkable turn of events, Kansas Creationist apologist FTK annouces that she realized she erred when she backed and defended noted slimeball Sleazy Sal Cordova.  Cordova is widely regarded as the "sleaziest human ever to live" according to sources.

FTK has announced that in the future she will not back Cordova in any of his future quote-mining and attacks on minor children, and "deeply regrets" her previous postion.  Citing confusion and misunderstanding as the reasons, FTK has now "come to her senses" according to a poster on the widely read and acclaimed ATBC board.

endit
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,11:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:49)
J-Dog.  As I've said before, I am my own island, and that should be quite apparent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not an island, FtK, you're a peninsula. A peninsula firmly attached to the continent of Cordovastan.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,11:05

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,10:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:41)
 
Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!?  Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is common sense, how do we recognize it, and how did we aquire it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense is a set of beliefs that are ingrained into a person in their early youth (more in some than others) along the lines of "eating this is bad" in combination with a set of sexual and interlectual basics picked up during the rest of a persons life.

They are culturally based, for the most part, and developed through a combination of influences.

They wre aquired similarly (at a guess), through a variety of measures, primarily a set of "do(n't) do this" survival rules, which has been added to by a sequence of cultural changes and religious (any number of different ones) additions to the majority belief/knowlege base.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good job.  They evolved...you have to take everything back to a first cause when considering where something came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know that "they evolved" isn't the same as being "related to biological evolution", right? (although I think partly they are)

You also know that I don't consider these morals to be technically correct, right? Just correct for the various factors in my life and the lives of others in similar situations, right?
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 03 2008,11:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:44)
           
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
         
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:30)
         
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22)
I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes.  Morality is relative.  The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act.  Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else.  Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.

That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them.  Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior.  There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.

If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why she seems to reserve special bitterness for Wes, who, as a professed Christian, is seen as a traitor to the cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue.  I resent Wes because he was part of an organization that works overtime at condemning anything that does not fall within their dogma of what science is and is not.  NSCE along with KCFS were responsible for feeding the public with completely inaccurate information about what was occuring here in Kansas in regard to the science standards debacle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, yeah. Far be it for scientists to define what science is or isn't. Don’t ever ask yourself why a credentialed scientist and Christian would advocate a position contrary to yours. He must be wrong.
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:27)
I've watched you cut at Christians endless times at your blog, and yet you have the audacity to go after me for being honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In all honesty, it's not me who attacks or “resents” Christians who are legitimate scientists. Or bans them from my blog, unlike Dembski.

I am not the one estranging myself from scientists who are Christian or any other religion. They’re still coming to my blog, and e-mailing me. I’m watching you cut yourself off. You're doing it to yourself.

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:56)
Facts are facts and they are all in writing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, "facts are facts." What's the age of the earth again? Since we're being so honest here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,11:10



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

And, there is absolutely no doubt that this conversation will now take the path of the immoral acts of various missionaries.  So, let me say upfront that sin affects everyone...EVERYONE...no one is immune, and some of the absolute nastiest people I've met are Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Splendid. And under great duress you've admitted that not all atheists/agnostics/nonchristians eat babies and hate the American Family.

So WHY should we be paying any attention to your pronouncements on Christian morality, or why should you bother us with it? Sounds like you guys have no better a track record than ANYONE ELSE.

(Don't bother us with heaven/hell, or whatever other theological wordplay you might have. You know you can't prove any of that better than anyone else. We've already established why it isn't necessary to take your opinions on science seriously.)
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,11:33

FTK, I'm still confused by your equivocation of moral evolution and moral relativity. I believe my moral sense -- including my ingrained 'icky' feelings regarding certain behaviours -- is the result of evolution, instilled in me as part of a complicated suite of behavioural responses to the social and environmental circumstances of my ancestors that were generally favoured (or at least not disfavoured) by natural and/or sexual selection, and are now exhibited by yours truly as a loose set of behavioural algorithms and predilections (instincts, if you will) that are, in part, packaged in my DNA and/or my experiential memory and selectively expressed through hormonal and other biochemical processes that we are yet struggling to fully understand. You think they were originally instilled by God. Fine (and please forgive me if my belief is less explanatory than yours).

But when you claim that my morals are therefore 'relative', whereas yours are 'absolute', exactly what do you mean?  That as an evolved trait, my moral sense is therefore subject to my whims and fancies or to social pressures? Well, no -- believing morals evolved does not make them any more intrinsically flexible or under my conscious control than my sexual preference or my impetus to provide parental care to my offspring. Or do you mean that as an evolved trait, it could have been otherwise? Sure, I suspect that under a different social/environmental history (either personal or for our species as a whole), my sense of what constitutes moral behaviour might have also been different. Does that make my morality 'relative'? And if so, what makes yours 'absolute'? Don't you also suspect that your own moral standard might have been otherwise, had things been different? On the grand scheme of things, couldn't God have instilled a different code of conduct if He wanted to? And on the personal level, have you not recently fretted about the religious (or irreligious) instruction (or lack thereof) that parents provide their children? What, exactly makes evolved morals relative and Biblical morals absolute, FtK?

On another note, regarding quote-mining, you state:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, as I've pointed out, I agree with your argument on its face: as a matter of diction alone, your use of the word 'condone' was not only proper, but apt. However, as others have pointed out to you, the word is more frequently misused and misinterpreted in the popular vocabulary than it is used properly. And while that might not be your fault, and you might have originally used the word innocently according to its proper definition (this is how I interpreted it at first -- you'll forgive me if I've changed my mind), you then persisted in using the word, unqualified, on another forum after miscommunication became readily apparent. If your interest was truly that of an honest communicator who didn't want to make it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't, you would have substituted another word or phrase, or at least been very careful in qualifying your terminology. Instead, you specially formatted the word, deliberately emphasizing it (and thereby compounding the miscommunication through easily misconstrued emphasis). I suspect that you wanted to get PZ's commenters all riled up in indignation at a word that does not quite mean what most of them think it means, whereupon you could rush in and point out the linguistic shortcomings of all the silly, riled-up Darwinists. You wanted to either: (a) make it appear that Skatje was saying something she didn't say; or (b) make it appear that you were saying something different than what you really meant. That makes you guilty as charged in my book -- either you quote-mined Skatje or you quote-mined yourself (by your own definition), take your pick. I'd go with the latter, as it's quite the feat.

Finally, it seems your primary purpose in this thread is to engage in one extended tu quoque fallacy. Amusingly, when I first accused you of this, you replied:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Says it all, really. But if we're going to play this fool's game, I'd like to ask you to engage in a little thought experiment. Suppose PZ (not young Skatje, but the big gaoler himself) stated the following, unequivocally, as preface to a post similar to Skatje's:

"I, PZ Myers, condone bestiality."

Which usage of 'condone' would you and Sal (and the rest of the creationist blogosphere) attribute to him? Which of the following would we be more likely to see captioning the requisite peccary photo:

(a) "Noted atheist PZ Myers has stated that he reluctantly forgives and overlooks sexual activities between humans and animals, provided that neither is harmed in the process. While Myers would never consider engaging in the acts himself as a matter of his own personal conduct, he refuses to condemn the act as intrinsically immoral."

or

(b) "PZ's a pig-fucker!" (Or some pseudo-polite rectum-esque variant, after Sal's style.)

Be honest, FtK.

Edited: a few typos.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,11:51

Ian:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those human norms in regard to murder also arose through evolution, otherwise absolutely nothing would have ever started to evolve in the first place.  Extremely simplistic example:  If all those early organisms ate each other because they were hungry, the earth would be unpopulated.  Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,11:53

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,12:33)
FTK, I'm still confused by your equivocation of moral evolution and moral relativity. I believe my moral sense -- including my ingrained 'icky' feelings regarding certain behaviours -- is the result of evolution, instilled in me as part of a complicated suite of behavioural responses to the social and environmental circumstances of my ancestors that were generally favoured (or at least not disfavoured) by natural and/or sexual selection, and are now exhibited by yours truly as a loose set of behavioural algorithms and predilections (instincts, if you will) that are, in part, packaged in my DNA and/or my experiential memory and selectively expressed through hormonal and other biochemical processes that we are yet struggling to fully understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I think this overstates what we know about this topic by a wide margin, and also over-attributes to evolutionary processes psychological and behavioral characteristics that plausibly have roots in cultural and social processes.

Of course, that the human being is obligately social and capable of accumulating cultural information itself has an evolutionary basis, so there are interacting levels here. And it may well be that the actual heritable component to ethics is not the content of ethical prohibitions, but rather the individual affective capacity for guilt and shame upon violation of the norms of one's immediate cultural group, which markedly amplifies that ability of such groups to regulate social behavior (through disapproval and punishment) in a way that enhances community cohesion.

But the bottom line is that it is very difficult to tease out the respective contributions of the several contributing levels of causation I describe < here >.

[edit]

The above comment is also responsive to Ftk's continued insistance that the only possible forms of causation are either biological evolution OR divine design:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I stated in the linked post above, these don't at all exhaust the possibilities.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,11:57

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,11:51)
Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you said that god engraves morality in each of us?
If that's true then a moral atheist must be using the god-given morals engraved in him since birth but must think that they do not come from god? He might think they evolved, but we know better right?

Do you agree with that FTK?

To put it another way, moral atheists are in fact using gods moral system unwittingly? Is that right?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 03 2008,12:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:48)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 03 2008,09:14)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.


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



Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality.  A good argument.  One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim.  FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.  

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality).  This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's interesting that you support Heddle but condemn me, because I completely agree with him...except for this:


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



More's the pity that you don't recognize the problem.  The problem is one of the argument, not the conclusion!
Heddle made an argument, Skatje made an extended argument, you make NO argument at all!  

 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was not quote mining.  Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal falsely provided a context where Skatje wants a collard peccary for a husband.  The label humor does not absolve Sal, since one can make fun of beliefs people actually have, as well as ones they do not.

It is defending behavior like this that undermines assertions of morality on your part.  Why, I do believe one is coming up next:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skatje's post was about if there were compelling arguments to outlaw bestiality.  She went through them, and argued that there were none that stand up to scrutiny.  Her post started with the fact that she asked you why bestiality is immoral/illegal ("against" could be taken to mean either).  The reason she did that particular post was that she would be a hypocrite to expect you to provide an argument if she herself was unwilling to do the same.  Her post itself was an excellent opportunity to critique her points.  If you have actually made an argument ( "I believe that zoophilia is immoral" is not an argument), I have been unable to find it.  This makes you look bad, not Skatje.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,12:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,12:57)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,11:51)
Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you said that god engraves morality in each of us?
If that's true then a moral atheist must be using the god-given morals engraved in him since birth but must think that they do not come from god? He might think they evolved, but we know better right?

Do you agree with that FTK?

To put it another way, moral atheists are in fact using gods moral system unwittingly? Is that right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she believes that. But Ftk is stating that from within the worldview of the atheist the only source of moral behavior can be evolution. Which I have disputed, as in my post above.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,12:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,11:51)
Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it's ignorant bullshit.

You know, the same reason we don't 'acknowledge' that the world is 6,000 years old.

Ask a harder question next time, please.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,12:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,11:53)
Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,12:33)
FTK, I'm still confused by your equivocation of moral evolution and moral relativity. I believe my moral sense -- including my ingrained 'icky' feelings regarding certain behaviours -- is the result of evolution, instilled in me as part of a complicated suite of behavioural responses to the social and environmental circumstances of my ancestors that were generally favoured (or at least not disfavoured) by natural and/or sexual selection, and are now exhibited by yours truly as a loose set of behavioural algorithms and predilections (instincts, if you will) that are, in part, packaged in my DNA and/or my experiential memory and selectively expressed through hormonal and other biochemical processes that we are yet struggling to fully understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I think this overstates what we know about this topic by a wide margin, and also over-attributes to evolutionary processes psychological and behavioral characteristics that plausibly have roots in cultural and social processes.

Of course, the that the human being is obligately social and capable of accumulating cultural information itself has an evolutionary basis, so there are interacting levels here. And it may well be that the actual heritable component to ethics is not the content of ethical prohibitions, but rather the individual affective capacity for guilt and shame upon violation of the norms of one's immediate cultural group, which markedly amplifies that ability of such groups to regulate social behavior (through disapproval and punishment) in a way that enhances community cohesion.

But the bottom line is that it is very difficult to tease out the respective contributions of the several contributing levels of causation I describe < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it most certainly overstates what we know. That's why I stated it as a personal belief regarding the origins of my own moral inclinations. (Unlike certain folks or ideologies, I don't use 'to believe' and 'to know' interchangeably.) I also think FtK's belief about the origin of morality overstates what we know by a relatively wide margin ;), and her contention seems to be that personal beliefs regarding moral origins are at issue in gauging the merits of individual morality (still unclear as to why this is, hence my question) so I felt justified in letting my own speculation run wild. And as you suggest, I don't think evolutionary processes and cultural/social processes are mutually exclusive (I'm a fan of the meme concept).
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,12:08

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,11:33)
FTK, I'm still confused by your equivocation of moral evolution and moral relativity. I believe my moral sense -- including my ingrained 'icky' feelings regarding certain behaviours -- is the result of evolution, instilled in me as part of a complicated suite of behavioural responses to the social and environmental circumstances of my ancestors that were generally favoured (or at least not disfavoured) by natural and/or sexual selection, and are now exhibited by yours truly as a loose set of behavioural algorithms and predilections (instincts, if you will) that are, in part, packaged in my DNA and/or my experiential memory and selectively expressed through hormonal and other biochemical processes that we are yet struggling to fully understand. You think they were originally instilled by God. Fine (and please forgive me if my belief is less explanatory than yours).

But when you claim that my morals are therefore 'relative', whereas yours are 'absolute', exactly what do you mean?  That as an evolved trait, my moral sense is therefore subject to my whims and fancies or to social pressures? Well, no -- believing morals evolved does not make them any more intrinsically flexible or under my conscious control than my sexual preference or my impetus to provide parental care to my offspring. Or do you mean that as an evolved trait, it could have been otherwise? Sure, I suspect that under a different social/environmental history (either personal or for our species as a whole), my sense of what constitutes moral behaviour might have also been different. Does that make my morality 'relative'? And if so, what makes yours 'absolute'? Don't you also suspect that your own moral standard might have been otherwise, had things been different? On the grand scheme of things, couldn't God have instilled a different code of conduct if He wanted to? And on the personal level, have you not recently fretted about the religious (or irreligious) instruction (or lack thereof) that parents provide their children? What, exactly makes evolved morals relative and Biblical morals absolute, FtK?

On another note, regarding quote-mining, you state:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, as I've pointed out, I agree with your argument on its face: as a matter of diction alone, your use of the word 'condone' was not only proper, but apt. However, as others have pointed out to you, the word is more frequently misused and misinterpreted in the popular vocabulary than it is used properly. And while that might not be your fault, and you might have originally used the word innocently according to its proper definition (this is how I interpreted it at first -- you'll forgive me if I've changed my mind), you then persisted in using the word, unqualified, on another forum after miscommunication became readily apparent. If your interest was truly that of an honest communicator who didn't want to make it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't, you would have substituted another word or phrase, or at least been very careful in qualifying your terminology. Instead, you specially formatted the word, deliberately emphasizing it (and thereby compounding the miscommunication through easily misconstrued emphasis). I suspect that you wanted to get PZ's commenters all riled up in indignation at a word that does not quite mean what most of them think it means, whereupon you could rush in and point out the linguistic shortcomings of all the silly, riled-up Darwinists. You wanted to either: (a) make it appear that Skatje was saying something she didn't say; or (b) make it appear that you were saying something different than what you really meant. That makes you guilty as charged in my book -- either you quote-mined Skatje or you quote-mined yourself (by your own definition), take your pick. I'd go with the latter, as it's quite the feat.

Finally, it seems your primary purpose in this thread is to engage in one extended tu quoque fallacy. Amusingly, when I first accused you of this, you replied:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Says it all, really. But if we're going to play this fool's game, I'd like to ask you to engage in a little thought experiment. Suppose PZ (not young Skatje, but the big gaoler himself) stated the following, unequivocally, as preface to a post similar to Skatje's:

"I, PZ Myers, condone bestiality."

Which usage of 'condone' would you and Sal (and the rest of the creationist blogosphere) attribute to him? Which of the following would we be more likely to see captioning the requisite peccary photo:

(a) "Noted atheist PZ Myers has stated that he reluctantly forgives and overlooks sexual activities between humans and animals, provided that neither is harmed in the process. While Myers would never consider engaging in the acts himself as a matter of his own personal conduct, he refuses to condemn the act as intrinsically immoral."

or

(b) "PZ's a pig-fucker!" (Or some pseudo-polite rectum-esque variant, after Sal's style.)

Be honest, FtK.

Edited: a few typos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there.  Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction.

As far as the Sal deal.  You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue.  Replace the word "condone".  I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place.  I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO.  She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it.  I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one.  

As far as this:


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

(a) "Noted atheist PZ Myers has stated that he reluctantly forgives and overlooks sexual activities between humans and animals, provided that neither is harmed in the process. While Myers would never consider engaging in the acts himself as a matter of his own personal conduct, he refuses to condemn the act as intrinsically immoral."

or

(b) "PZ's a pig-fucker!" (Or some pseudo-polite rectum-esque variant, after Sal's style.)

Be honest, FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're above paragraph is fine, except you'd have to take out the word reluctantly.  Skatje did not appear "reluctant" about condoning the act of people having relationships with their pets.  She merely didn't find it compelling *herself*.  She made arguments *for* it.  

Sal didn't say "PZ's a pig-fucker"!  He made a joke, in bad taste, that I have condemned no less that at least 5 or 6 times now.  Please accept my condemnation and move on.  I don't know how else I can phrase it.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,12:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:51)
Ian:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those human norms in regard to murder also arose through evolution, otherwise absolutely nothing would have ever started to evolve in the first place.  Extremely simplistic example:  If all those early organisms ate each other because they were hungry, the earth would be unpopulated.  Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Errr.....no.

Human norms come about for many different reasons, biological evolution is one thing that may well have contributed significantly. Alternatively, primitive human religion (and newer religions as well, if they were dominant in  a certain area) as well as government actions based upon individual opinions.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,12:12

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:51)
Ian:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those human norms in regard to murder also arose through evolution, otherwise absolutely nothing would have ever started to evolve in the first place.  Extremely simplistic example:  If all those early organisms ate each other because they were hungry, the earth would be unpopulated.  Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends on what you mean by "based on evolution".

Animals are going to have to evolve to a certain level of sophistication before a society can emerge, and the evolution of those animals is through a "Darwinian" process.  Societies themselves will then evolve, but that process is not Darwinian.  Cultures do not develop in the same way as organisms - the modes of transmission and change of cultural phemomena do not follow a Mendelian pattern (it's more like Lamarckianism - there's no cultural equivalent of a genotype).  Also, societies do not form nested hierarchies - there is a tremendous amount of borrowing and overlap among social groups which developed separately.

So when we say that morals and taboos "evolved" we mean it in this cultural sense - there's a deeper genetic basis for things like not killing your parents or eating poo, but not for the panoply of moral codes which we see now.  Yes, they're "based on evolution", but not biological evolution.  Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.


Edit - fixed crappy spelling.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,12:14

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,18:12)
It depends on what you mean by "based on evolution".

Animals are going to have to evolve to a certain level of sophistication before a society can emerge, and the evolution of those animals is through a "Darwinian" process.  Societies themselves will then evolve, but that process is not Darwinian.  Cultures do not develop in the same way as organisms - the modes of transmission and change of cultural phemomena do not follow a Mendelian pattern (it's more like Lamarckianism - there's no cultural equivalent of a genotype).  Also, societies do not form nested hierarchies - there is a treemendous amount of borrowing and overlap among social groups which developed separately.

So when we say that morals and taboos "evolved" we mean it in this cultural sense - there's a deeper genetic basis for things like not killing your parents or eating poo, but not for the panoply of moral codes which we see now.  Yes, they're "based on evolution", but not biological evolution.  Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactamundo! (Who let the Fonz in here?)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,12:20

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:08)
Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there.  Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are few things more pathetic and/or annoying than condescension from someone who is woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.

One possible exception is condescension from someone who is demonstrably dishonest as well as woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,12:27

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 03 2008,12:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:51)
Ian:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, do *I* endorse, condone or otherwise take as acceptable murder because I do not think there is an absolute morality. (I do not believe the universe has any opinion on murder, therefore it isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but due to human norms and certain cultural and evolutionary advantages it is (practically) universally considered immoral).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those human norms in regard to murder also arose through evolution, otherwise absolutely nothing would have ever started to evolve in the first place.  Extremely simplistic example:  If all those early organisms ate each other because they were hungry, the earth would be unpopulated.  Morality is based on evolution for the atheist.  There is absolutely no way to get around that fact.  I have no clue why you people cannot acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Errr.....no.

Human norms come about for many different reasons, biological evolution is one thing that may well have contributed significantly. Alternatively, primitive human religion (and newer religions as well, if they were dominant in  a certain area) as well as government actions based upon individual opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alternatively, primitive human religion (and newer religions as well, if they were dominant in  a certain area) as well as government actions based upon individual opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.  As our brain, mind, and thoughts evolved thoughout time, alone with those evolving thought came our religious ideals.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It may not be "helpful" to your argument, but it is precisely correct.  You're starting from the present and working yourself back in time while considering all the modes of thought we acknowledge today that have evolved in regard to morality.  I'm work from past to present and considering how morality evolved from that first living molecule.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,12:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whereas soccer moms with high school educations know that God gifted the world with fundamentalist Protestantism 6,000 years ago when the world began. I don't know why you people refuse to acknowledge this.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,12:36

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2008,13:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whereas soccer moms with high school educations know that God gifted the world with fundamentalist Protestantism 6,000 years ago when the world began. I don't know why you people refuse to acknowledge this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'cuz we're mad at God.

Duh.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,12:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,12:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:08)
Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there.  Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are few things more pathetic and/or annoying than condescension from someone who is woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.

One possible exception is condescension from someone who is demonstrably dishonest as well as woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou,

You tell me where I'm wrong instead of merely stating that I'm ignorant.  I am open to rethinking my position on this issue, but I have not seen an argument yet that suggests that I'm off base.  

I am saying emphatically that, from an atheist perspective, our morality evolved along with everything else on planet earth.  From a *true* atheist perspective (very few people are true atheists, IMHO), there was no source of intelligence from which this evolving process took root.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,12:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as the Sal deal.  You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue.  Replace the word "condone".  I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place.  I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO.  She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it.  I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tolerates.

Or better yet:
disregard, excuse, forgive, overlook, pardon.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,12:42

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:38)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,12:20)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:08)
Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there.  Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are few things more pathetic and/or annoying than condescension from someone who is woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.

One possible exception is condescension from someone who is demonstrably dishonest as well as woefully, willfully ignorant on a topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou,

You tell me where I'm wrong instead of merely stating that I'm ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good idea. Explaining the latter would take too long.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I am open to rethinking my position on this issue, but I have not seen an argument yet that suggests that I'm off base.  

I am saying emphatically that, from an atheist perspective, our morality evolved along with everything else on planet earth.  From a *true* atheist perspective (very few people are true atheists, IMHO),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why do atheists upset you so, if there's so few of them?
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,12:43

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:08)
Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there.  Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I'll "keep thinking", hon. My latest speculations are now running as to why evolution might have ingrained me with the idea that unprovoked patronization violates my evolved sense of fair play in honest dialogue.



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

As far as the Sal deal.  You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue.  Replace the word "condone".  I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place.  I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO.  She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it.  I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I already gave you a whole paragraph. In the interest of brevity, perhaps the contained phrase "refuses to condemn as intrinsically immoral" might be of service? Beyond that, why be lazy? You want people to know exactly what you mean -- no more, no less -- right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as this:
 

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

(a) "Noted atheist PZ Myers has stated that he reluctantly forgives and overlooks sexual activities between humans and animals, provided that neither is harmed in the process. While Myers would never consider engaging in the acts himself as a matter of his own personal conduct, he refuses to condemn the act as intrinsically immoral."

or

(b) "PZ's a pig-fucker!" (Or some pseudo-polite rectum-esque variant, after Sal's style.)

Be honest, FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're above paragraph is fine, except you'd have to take out the word reluctantly.  Skatje did not appear "reluctant" about condoning the act of people having relationships with their pets.  She merely didn't find it compelling *herself*.  She made arguments *for* it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My dictionary includes "esp. reluctantly" as a note regarding proper diction for 'condone'. You say Skatje does not appear "reluctant". And yet, you also note that she doesn't find it to be an especially compelling behaviour to engage in herself, nor, I would argue, to advocate (given the obvious disclaimers she has placed in her communications from the get-go). Easy question: do you think that she might be reluctant, not only to engage in bestiality, but to advocate it? If your answer is yes, then "reluctantly" is a fair inclusion, not to mention only apt when paraphrasing the proper meaning of 'condone'. If your answer is no, and you actually contend that she is "advocating" bestiality sans reluctance, well . . . where were we on that quote-mining thing? For some strange reason I'm getting a bit dizzy here.



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

Sal didn't say "PZ's a pig-fucker"!  He made a joke, in bad taste, that I have condemned no less that at least 5 or 6 times now.  Please accept my condemnation and move on.  I don't know how else I can phrase it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



After all this, you must see that despite paying lip service to condemnation, you have been condoning Sal's ridiculous behaviour all along. You know what? You might want to go look up that word 'condone' in the dictionary, because it has a very specific, subtle meaning and I don't know how else I can phrase it.

'Round and 'round and 'round we go . . . where she stops, nobody knows.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,12:46

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,10:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It may not be "helpful" to your argument, but it is precisely correct.  You're starting from the present and working yourself back in time while considering all the modes of thought we acknowledge today that have evolved in regard to morality.  I'm work from past to present and considering how morality evolved from that first living molecule.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh for crying out loud.

Please go back and read my entire post.  CULTURAL EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK LIKE BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.  Yes, the organisms which have the culture went throgh a process of biological evolution, but the culture itself did not.  "Society is based on biological evolution" is not helpful because it tells us very little about that society.  We don't expect to see the precursors of culture in the first living cells.  

If you're going to be absurd, why not take it back to the atomic level, and claim that society is based on supernovae?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,12:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:38)
I am open to rethinking my position on this issue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe the evidence would strongly suggest otherwise.

ETA: Thus rational discourse is quite useless and unfruitful.  I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than go through the circles upon circles of this "conversation" with you as others have so patiently done.


Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,12:57

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:27)
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.  As our brain, mind, and thoughts evolved thoughout time, alone with those evolving thought came our religious ideals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds so simple -- religion just 'evolved' along with 'mind'. I'm glad that, as an atheist, I have such a simple, obvious philosophy. Quick question, though, while you're letting me know what I must think about the evolution of religion (never mind the mind): did it evolve as part of the mind? As a side-effect of the mind? As a parasite of the mind? As part of something other than the mind? As a side effect of something other than the mind? As a parasite of something other than the mind? While there may be "no other way it could have come about", I think we might have our hands full here for the time being.

But it is a good question, and the answer might have rather important implications, don't you think? I'm glad you're asking it. Oh wait -- you're not. You already have a different answer. I'll just ask Dawkins or PZ or Dennett or a number of others who have reconsidered it in the past millennium or so. They don't have answers yet, true, but at least they have some interesting, conflicting and compelling ideas.

Edited: clarity/typos
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,13:04

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:27)
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.  As our brain, mind, and thoughts evolved thoughout time, alone with those evolving thought came our religious ideals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IF RELIGION EVOLVED, WHY ARE THEIR STILL JEWS????!!!ONE?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,13:10

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It may not be "helpful" to your argument, but it is precisely correct.  You're starting from the present and working yourself back in time while considering all the modes of thought we acknowledge today that have evolved in regard to morality.  I'm work from past to present and considering how morality evolved from that first living molecule.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By this logic, baseball, chess, the sonata form in 18th century music, written language, the jitterbug, and all recipes for pound cake also arose by means of biological evolution.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,13:11

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,13:04)
IF RELIGION EVOLVED, WHY ARE THEIR STILL JEWS????!!!ONE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To build the Third Temple and kick off that whole end-times / Rapture dealio.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,13:15

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,13:04)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:27)
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.  As our brain, mind, and thoughts evolved thoughout time, alone with those evolving thought came our religious ideals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IF RELIGION EVOLVED, WHY ARE THEIR STILL JEWS????!!!ONE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, for that matter, still Christians? (from the Islamic perspective)

Matter of fact, shouldn't we all be Scientologists by now?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,13:19

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2008,13:15)
 
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,13:04)
  IF RELIGION EVOLVED, WHY ARE THEIR STILL JEWS????!!!ONE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, for that matter, still Christians? (from the Islamic perspective)

Matter of fact, shouldn't we all be Scientologists by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I think we are just a transitional form.


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,13:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already gave you a whole paragraph. In the interest of brevity, perhaps the contained phrase "refuses to condemn as intrinsically immoral" might be of service? Beyond that, why be lazy? You want people to know exactly what you mean -- no more, no less -- right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, my loving God!  Lazy?  You simply cannot be serious.  I have spent *two days* explaining *in agonizing detail* exactly what I meant by the word "condone".  My definition of condone was right on target.  Skatje didn't "refuse to condemn zoophilia as intrinsically immoral".  That is not at all what she said.  She said it was not for her, but that it can be a "meaningful" relationship for others.  There was no "refuses to condemn" about it.  

Now, you tell me.....If Sal had written that zoophilia post, how would you have taken it?  Do you truly believe that the Sal haters here would not have taken that post and gone absolutely hog wild with it?  I believe I was *very* tame and relayed everything exactly as she said it.  No cracking jokes, no name calling, no ridicule.  I provided the facts and that is all.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,13:23

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2008,13:15)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 03 2008,13:04)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:27)
Religion evolved as well.  Ask Dawkins.  PZ gave a speech in MN on the evolution of the mind a few months ago.  The mind evolved, and religious thought evolved along with it.  There is no other way it could have come about.  As our brain, mind, and thoughts evolved thoughout time, alone with those evolving thought came our religious ideals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IF RELIGION EVOLVED, WHY ARE THEIR STILL JEWS????!!!ONE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, for that matter, still Christians? (from the Islamic perspective)

Matter of fact, shouldn't we all be Scientologists by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm... what's L. Ron's policy on bestiality? As a Darwinist, that's a big selling point, you know.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,13:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,11:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're arguing that, because the members of the society evolved biologically, the society itself is based on biological evolution.  In a sense you would be right, but it's not very helpful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It may not be "helpful" to your argument, but it is precisely correct.  You're starting from the present and working yourself back in time while considering all the modes of thought we acknowledge today that have evolved in regard to morality.  I'm work from past to present and considering how morality evolved from that first living molecule.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By this logic, baseball, chess, the sonata form in 18th century music, written language, the jitterbug, and all recipes for pound cake also arose by means of biological evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  I look forward to FTK's hypotheses regarding which combinations of alleles are responsible for the design of traffic signals, Elvin Jones' drum solo in A Love Supreme, or the FA thinking Steve McLaren was competent to manage England.  Perhaps she thinks this is what scientists do all day.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,13:32

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2008,12:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as the Sal deal.  You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue.  Replace the word "condone".  I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place.  I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO.  She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it.  I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tolerates.

Or better yet:
disregard, excuse, forgive, overlook, pardon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No she more than "tolerates" it.  She believes it can be meaningful.  


As for these:
excuse, forgive, overlook, pardon

That is exactly what condone means.  I have yet to be provided with another definition of "condone".

When googling, condone is always defined in the way that I used it:

< http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condone >

< http://www.answers.com/topic/condone >

< http://www.allwords.com/word-condoned.html >

< http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/condone.htm >

< http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone >

I have no idea what the problem is with the usage of that word.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,13:39

If anyone has unused irony-meter jokes in their desk drawers, Pirahna Lady lecturing us on linguistic precision is the best opportunity you'll have in weeks.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,13:39

Oh, this is classic....over at PZ someone writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pharyngula allows dissent - perhaps not on matters of the slander and trolling of the 17 year-old daughter of its author, but it allows dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, of course, the truth is not allowed.  I did not "troll" Skatje's blog.  She came to *MY* blog, commented on *my* sense of morality, and then shared her own.   And, I didn't "slander" her....I used her exact words and her exact post and linked directly to it.  

Hello out there PZ lurking fans.  PZ's daughter came to ***MY**** blog to share her views, not the other way around.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,13:40

Geez, I spend all morning at the dentists office and come back to find that this merry-go-round has cycled through two more pages and gotten, predictably, nowhere.

Dental work is at least productive!

But I see that no one has tackled this one, so I'll jump back on.  
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:20)
Now, you tell me.....If Sal had written that zoophilia post, how would you have taken it?  Do you truly believe that the Sal haters here would not have taken that post and gone absolutely hog wild with it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I saw that zoophilia post with Sal's name attached, i would have wondered how he can afford a ghost writer on a grad student stipend. It did not contain any pejoratives like darwinism, materialist, or other hallmarks of his chronic drooling wit. It was reasonably well-written, and precise. Clearly all of us would have immediately accused Sal of plagiarizing it, and gone off on a vast googling to find the source.

Does that help?

And now, how about those "facts" re Walt Brown's peer reviewers, while we're into answering each other's questions?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,13:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:38)
You tell me where I'm wrong instead of merely stating that I'm ignorant.  I am open to rethinking my position on this issue, but I have not seen an argument yet that suggests that I'm off base.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, on a different issue perhaps but I've shown you where you were promoting something that is demonstrably wrong.

You did not rethink your position, you ignored it. You could have argued your position. You did not.

You may not have seen the argument, it does not mean it was not there.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,13:42

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:39)
Oh, this is classic....over at PZ someone writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pharyngula allows dissent - perhaps not on matters of the slander and trolling of the 17 year-old daughter of its author, but it allows dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, of course, the truth is not allowed.  I did not "troll" Skatje's blog.  She came to *MY* blog, commented on *my* sense of morality, and then shared her own.   And, I didn't "slander" her....I used her exact words and her exact post and linked directly to it.  

Hello out there PZ lurking fans.  PZ's daughter came to ***MY**** blog to share her views, not the other way around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did PZ's daughter also post a picture of a pig-as-husband next to a byline naming you? Just wondering  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,13:46

AND ANOTHER:

[quote]FTK, you're really going to defend the man who trolled the journal of a 17 year old girl because he disagrees with her father? [quote]

Absolutely incorrect.  Skatje visited *my* blog, voiced her opinion on *my* morals, then wrote an extended post on her views.  Sal only commented on it after I posted about it at HIS blog 3 months after she wrote it.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 03 2008,13:48

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,13:39)
If anyone has unused irony-meter jokes in their desk drawers, Pirahna Lady lecturing us on linguistic precision is the best opportunity you'll have in weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In Soviet Russia, Irony Meter breaks you!


Hey, you asked for unused irony meter jokes, not good ones.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,13:57

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:20)
Oh, my loving God!  Lazy?  You simply cannot be serious.  I have spent *two days* explaining *in agonizing detail* exactly what I meant by the word "condone".  My definition of condone was right on target.  Skatje didn't "refuse to condemn zoophilia as intrinsically immoral".  That is not at all what she said.  She said it was not for her, but that it can be a "meaningful" relationship for others.  There was no "refuses to condemn" about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Skatje NEVER advocated bestiality. She explicitly offers this as a disclaimer, and points out that the entire post is in response to you, FtK, evidently "freaking out" after she asked why YOU were so quick to CONDEMN IT. (I can't verify her description, but at least I can accurately relay the context for her post as she gives it.) She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances. She then concluded:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I initially defended you against charges of quote-mining based on the proper definition of 'condone' -- as others have pointed out (here and on Pharyngula), 'tolerance' is a pretty good synonym. But you have, indeed, spent *two days* explaining *in agonizing detail* exactly what you meant by the word 'condone': you meant support and advocacy. Not tolerance, not reluctant acceptance. Flat out approval, with the only caveat being not for Skatje herself. You think Skatje approves of bestiality for anyone aside from herself, without reservation. In other words, you meant 'condone' in the vernacular sense, as it was received, and not in the proper sense for which I defended you. Quite clearly, given the content of Skatje's post and your paraphrase here ("She said [zoophilia] was not for her, but that it can be a "meaningful" relationship for others"), you quote-mined, as charged. I withdraw my defense of your use of the word 'condone' -- you meant it exactly as it was received, and the charges against you are completely valid. (Somebody call off the Darwinian police -- I've recanted on my own!)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, you tell me.....If Sal had written that zoophilia post, how would you have taken it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As written: a rational discussion of why zoophilia is unsurprising, why two of the primary arguments for its prohibition fail in some circumstances, and why -- in those circumstances -- its legal prohibition would appear to have no logical basis. How would you have taken it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you truly believe that the Sal haters here would not have taken that post and gone absolutely hog wild with it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please tell me this pun is unintentional. Please? In any case, get Sal to offer something a little braver and more compelling than pig-on-teen fantasies and playground humour, then maybe we'll find out?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe I was *very* tame and relayed everything exactly as she said it.  No cracking jokes, no name calling, no ridicule.  I provided the facts and that is all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope. See above. You quote-mined, and have been even more dishonest in your defense thereof. That is all.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,14:12

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,13:40)
Geez, I spend all morning at the dentists office and come back to find that this merry-go-round has cycled through two more pages and gotten, predictably, nowhere.

Dental work is at least productive!

But I see that no one has tackled this one, so I'll jump back on.    
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:20)
Now, you tell me.....If Sal had written that zoophilia post, how would you have taken it?  Do you truly believe that the Sal haters here would not have taken that post and gone absolutely hog wild with it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I saw that zoophilia post with Sal's name attached, i would have wondered how he can afford a ghost writer on a grad student stipend. It did not contain any pejoratives like darwinism, materialist, or other hallmarks of his chronic drooling wit. It was reasonably well-written, and precise. Clearly all of us would have immediately accused Sal of plagiarizing it, and gone off on a vast googling to find the source.

Does that help?

And now, how about those "facts" re Walt Brown's peer reviewers, while we're into answering each other's questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that help?  Not at all as it doesn't answer the question.

Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,14:17

Do you know why constant jokes are made? Do you know why people like Sal are ridiculed?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2008,14:18

I think that if we poll the people available via this link, we will be able to get a whole, new, fresh perspective on what Sal condones.  

Maybe we could send them a link to Sal and FTK's blogs?  Maybe a link to the interesting discussion here? On Pharyngula?

What do you think Sal?  

< http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/ >

edited:  Nah.  Nobody here would sink that low.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,14:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:12)
Does that help?  Not at all as it doesn't answer the question.

Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the insult. How would you know what "truthful" is for another person?

I was truthful. It didn't read like Sal had written it. It made sense. It didn't use the pejoratives darwinist or materialist. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not advocate bestiality. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not talk about the moral aspects of bestiality.

So I would have ignored it, or assumed that Sal didn't really write it, as I previously said.

And that's the truth. Sworn on a virtual stack of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

So now how about the truth re Walt Brown's peer reviewers?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, but that is NOT how I read this paragraph:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,14:25

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, but that is NOT how I read this paragraph:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Then you should read it again. Or parse it very carefully to show us how we are all mistaken, because everybody but you reads it the same way as Cory has described.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,14:25

You know what she says with that? She says that she understands why people do it. She can understand there feelings, have emphasis for them. She can place herself, at least for a bit, in those people's shoes.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,14:25

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:12)
Does that help?  Not at all as it doesn't answer the question.

Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the insult. How would you know what "truthful" is for another person?

I was truthful. It didn't read like Sal had written it. It made sense. It didn't use the pejoratives darwinist or materialist. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not advocate bestiality. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not talk about the moral aspects of bestiality.

So I would have ignored it, or assumed that Sal didn't really write it, as I previously said.

And that's the truth. Sworn on a virtual stack of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

So now how about the truth re Walt Brown's peer reviewers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unbelieveable.  

Is there anyone here who will admit that they would have used that post as a running board for ridicule if Sal had written it.

I've seen how you guys lay on the ridicule, disgust, name calling....there is no way that you can honestly say that you would not have gone off the deep end with that post had Sal written it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,14:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:12)
Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, had Skatje's post appeared on Sal's blog verbatim under his name, it would have been an utter non-sequitur and completely inconsistent with his other views, and therefore very puzzling. After all, her essay does not in any way connect her tolerance of sexual acts with animals to Darwinism, nor is it pejorative in any other way. So it would have been very difficult to evaluate, and probably would have triggered a Gricean search for implicate meanings (e.g., Is this satire? A mistake? Maybe a passage was left out?)
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,14:32

Have you got ANY IDEA why Sal is getting ridiculed?? We've explained dozens of time's to you WHY he's talking complete bullcrap. And apperantly it won't come through to you, or you're simply ignoring it for some reason. We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,14:32

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:25)
Unbelieveable.  

Is there anyone here who will admit that they would have used that post as a running board for ridicule if Sal had written it.

I've seen how you guys lay on the ridicule, disgust, name calling....there is no way that you can honestly say that you would not have gone off the deep end with that post had Sal written it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was an HONEST answer. Sorry if I can't jump through the hoop that you have set up for me.

Now, can you tell us about Walt's peer reviewers this time?
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,14:33

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:19)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:12)
Does that help?  Not at all as it doesn't answer the question.

Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the insult. How would you know what "truthful" is for another person?

I was truthful. It didn't read like Sal had written it. It made sense. It didn't use the pejoratives darwinist or materialist. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not advocate bestiality. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not talk about the moral aspects of bestiality.

So I would have ignored it, or assumed that Sal didn't really write it, as I previously said.

And that's the truth. Sworn on a virtual stack of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

So now how about the truth re Walt Brown's peer reviewers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unbelieveable.  

Is there anyone here who will admit that they would have used that post as a running board for ridicule if Sal had written it.

I've seen how you guys lay on the ridicule, disgust, name calling....there is no way that you can honestly say that you would not have gone off the deep end with that post had Sal written it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with Skatje, and I would agree with Sal if he wrote it.

EDIT: Though, like Bill, I would suspect satire, since it would not be consilient with Sal's other opinions.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,14:35

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,14:25)
You know what she says with that? She says that she understands why people do it. She can understand there feelings, have emphasis for them. She can place herself, at least for a bit, in those people's shoes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She understands it, she condones it, she believes that it should not "come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships."

If Sal or I had said that, you people who have gone stark raving mad.  The blogophere would have lit up like the 4th of July.

And, you talk about me supporting anything that anyone from my side of the debate has to say....

I will now provide you with a mirror...



Spend some time peering into it.  Thanks.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,14:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,14:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:12)
Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, had Skatje's post appeared on Sal's blog verbatim under his name, it would have been an utter non-sequitur and completely inconsistent with his other views, and therefore very puzzling. After all, her essay does not in any way connect her tolerance of sexual acts with animals to Darwinism, nor is it pejorative in any other way. So it would have been very difficult to evaluate, and probably would have triggered a Gricean search for implicate meanings (e.g., Is this satire? A mistake? Maybe a passage was left out?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great job of skirting the question.  BS, but the easy way out.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Sal or I had said that, you people who have gone stark raving mad.  The blogophere would have lit up like the 4th of July.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O really? And what do you have to proove that? What's the base of that assumption? Why are you biased like that?
AGAIN: We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,14:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:36)
Great job of skirting the question.  BS, but the easy way out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As someone with Dembski's sense of humor would say, "takes one to know one".

Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2008,14:50

So, bottom line, no pun intended, is that we can now update the slogan to read we are the Church-Burnin', Pig Pokin', Ebola Boys*.


*Plus Kristine and Abbie, cuz us Evolution-luvin', Atheistic Darwanistas condone EEOC compliance.

edited
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,14:51

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:36)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,14:31)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:12)
Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, had Skatje's post appeared on Sal's blog verbatim under his name, it would have been an utter non-sequitur and completely inconsistent with his other views, and therefore very puzzling. After all, her essay does not in any way connect her tolerance of sexual acts with animals to Darwinism, nor is it pejorative in any other way. So it would have been very difficult to evaluate, and probably would have triggered a Gricean search for implicate meanings (e.g., Is this satire? A mistake? Maybe a passage was left out?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great job of skirting the question.  BS, but the easy way out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wasn't aware of being "in" something from which I need a way out.

Meanwhile, Sal's < actual posts > cause no puzzlement at all:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are atheists immoral people and bad parents? Incest, Eugenics, and Nachman’s U-Paradox…

...If Darwinists want to impale themselves on their pets like Darwinist Kenneth Pinyan or chop off their private parts like Darwinist John Roughgarden...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But now he's just trolling, if you can call it that (as if he was ever doing anything else). Ftk, you're over here madly defending him, and he's over there cranking out his usual horseshit.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,15:07

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,14:51)
I wasn't aware of being "in" something from which I need a way out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you are "out" of is character.  This whole conversation has become increasingly bizarre.  The only way I can reconcile it is by considering that FtK has carefully constructed caricatures for all of us and when you don't react in the way she expects you to react, then she can only keep her world together by assuming that you are lying.  It just doesn't ever enter the picture that you could be more complex or nuanced then the picture she has of you in her mind.  

It would really be much easier if FtK would just distribute the script she has in her mind, so we can all correctly play our part in this melodrama.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 03 2008,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are atheists immoral people and bad parents? Incest, Eugenics, and Nachman’s U-Paradox…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< I wonder >.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,15:12

I'm starting to think Sal believes his horseshit in exactly the same way that Ann Coulter believes her horseshit.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,15:16

Dear Bill, I am NOT defending Sal.  I am truthfully relaying the facts in this incident.  Period.  Sal is his own person, as am I.  I don't suppose you want to be responsible for everything that is written here, do you?  Do you really???  Think about it.

I can post at a blog without on every belief of the other bloggers.  In fact, I personally think it is a good think to have people with varying opinions a blogs and forums.  That is why I come here and defend *my* position and try to tell you about my beliefs and why I support them.

My blog is open to those who are interested in meaningful conversation, and just like PZ, I'll moderate when someone gets nasty, or when I feel the conversation is repetative, going no where, or when someone is posting only to try to make points.  But, I don't ban like PZ does.  Never have.  Even blipey gets a few comments to slip by on occassion.  I've not banned him.

And, if someone was brought up in a topic or comments of my post, they would have the right to defend themselves.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,15:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, but that is NOT how I read this paragraph:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Then you have serious reading comprehension issues. Please feel free to point out how that paragraph states that sexual relationships with animals are "deep and meaningful". My guess is you're going to need a pretty flagrant ellipsis. The paragraph quite clearly states that deep and meaningful relationships with animals can (unsurprisingly) lead to sexual expression, and not t'other way 'round (as you would have us believe).

And for my answer to your question, I respectfully disagree with Skatje (mostly on the issue of informed consent), and would disrepectfully disagree with Sal. No cause for ridicule no matter who wrote it, and I dare you to claim any hypocrisy in my provisioning of respect.
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 03 2008,15:23

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,15:25

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:16)
Dear Bill, I am NOT defending Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor have I attacked him.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2008,15:36

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are atheists immoral people and bad parents? Incest, Eugenics, and Nachman’s U-Paradox…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< I wonder >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ooh...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine. I bet Julie has qualifications, though..
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,15:41

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:16)
Dear Bill, I am NOT defending Sal.  I am truthfully relaying the facts in this incident.  Period.  Sal is his own person, as am I.  I don't suppose you want to be responsible for everything that is written here, do you?  Do you really???  Think about it.

I can post at a blog without on every belief of the other bloggers.  In fact, I personally think it is a good think to have people with varying opinions a blogs and forums.  That is why I come here and defend *my* position and try to tell you about my beliefs and why I support them.

My blog is open to those who are interested in meaningful conversation, and just like PZ, I'll moderate when someone gets nasty, or when I feel the conversation is repetative, going no where, or when someone is posting only to try to make points.  But, I don't ban like PZ does.  Never have.  Even blipey gets a few comments to slip by on occassion.  I've not banned him.

And, if someone was brought up in a topic or comments of my post, they would have the right to defend themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't matter if you defend him, we care about his point. And THAT'S what it's all about: his point is utter bullcrap, nonsense. Too bad you're not reacting on our explanations why his point is nonsense.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,15:45

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do.  That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days.  That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable.  So, here I am, and here I'll stay.  In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology.  His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2008,15:46

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are atheists immoral people and bad parents? Incest, Eugenics, and Nachman’s U-Paradox…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< I wonder >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  That's great!
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,15:48

Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2008,15:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)
You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable.  So, here I am, and here I'll stay.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I hope Sal at least has the courtesy to send you a Mother's Day card after all this is over.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 03 2008,15:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolute Biblical morals and lack of common sense?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)
   
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do.  That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days.  That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable.  So, here I am, and here I'll stay.  In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology.  His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A suspicious person might start to think that you pulled that claim about peer review of Brown's book out of thin air and now you can't defend it. That is pretty much the definition of "undefendable". With every post that goes by it becomes more undefendable.

If you have the "facts", post them on the thread where the question originated. That seems pretty simple, quite tidy, and will stop the questions over here as well.

Thanks in advance
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 03 2008,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do.  That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days.  That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable.  So, here I am, and here I'll stay.  In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology.  His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, FtK? Not change a subject?

You claim such familiarity with and understanding of Brown's work, yet you can't be bothered to take the little time it should require to find his statement that his work has been peer-reviewed.

Perhaps if you'd come up with that reference, it would help show that you're "not a liar."

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

Simple, really.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 03 2008,16:03

Well, Sal said it! :D
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Darwinists want to impale themselves on their pets like Darwinist Kenneth Pinyan or chop off their private parts like Darwinist John Roughgarden, the US Government should limit its intereference (unless of course medical malpractice is indicated or cruelty to animals is involved).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, was that so painful?

(Come to think of it, my first "date" with Rev. Barky was us in a skit with him dressed up as a bear and chasing me from the stage. For this he changed the song "God is Watching Us" to "Bears are Watching Us," and now it's our song. Wow, I'm really glad I can share this with you guys and that it's all out in the open. Do you think Sal may be < reaching out too >? ;)

Whoa.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,16:03

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,16:09

For the biologists in the crowd, did anyone else's head explode just a little bit at seeing Sal call Joan Roughgarden a "Darwinist"? Having read her recent work, heard her speak, debated with her over pizza, and even had some work that I was briefly involved in appropriated (poorly) for her . . . rather unique . . . take on evolutionary mechanisms, I have to say: that one's a keeper.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,16:15

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:03)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bull.

Start to finish.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,16:15

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,16:09)
For the biologists in the crowd, did anyone else's head explode just a little bit at seeing Sal call Joan Roughgarden a "Darwinist"? Having read her recent work, heard her speak, debated with her over pizza, and even had some work that I was briefly involved in appropriated (poorly) for her . . . rather unique . . . take on evolutionary mechanisms, I have to say: that one's a keeper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal clearly hasn't read her book. I did notice that he is featuring Sanford's Genetic Entropy tome on his most recent post; maybe he can get to it when he finishes that opus...

I knew John when I was a graduate student and he was a brand-new faculty member. I've not had the pleasure of meeting Joan. But John was, well, prickly. I hear Joan is much happier. Is that true?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,16:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,16:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,16:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:03)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bull.

Start to finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How so.  You never explain yourself.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,16:15)
Sal clearly hasn't read her book. I did notice that he is featuring Sanford's Genetic Entropy tome on his most recent post; maybe he can get to it when he finishes that opus...

I knew John when I was a graduate student and he was a brand-new faculty member. I've not had the pleasure of meeting Joan. But John was, well, prickly. I hear Joan is much happier. Is that true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, well I never had the pleasure of meeting John. Read a few of his textbooks and more than a few of his papers, of course. As for 'prickly' . . . hard to say. I don't know if I'd call her pleasant, but happy might be a fair description, all told. And very, very sure of herself, to put it delicately. Of course, you'd have to be when walking into the jaws of a department that leaned heavily toward old-school adaptationists and surprisingly vocal population ecologists (to say nothing of what she must encounter and defend quite apart from her science, as evidenced by Sal's flippant . . .'humour'). It would certainly be entertaining to watch her mop the floor in a meeting of minds with the likes of Cordova, that's for damned sure.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)
   
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,21:28)
I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course the private journals are peer-reviewed...many times even by Darwinists.  I know Walt Brown's theories are peer reviewed by evolutionists, but obviously, he's never going to get them accepted in mainstream science journals...it's freaking creation science...you know -- the stuff those hideous, money thirsty "liars" theorize about....lol, that accusation would seriously get Walt Brown giggling.  Believe me, he's not in it for the money...dig a little and you'll understand why I say that.

When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals.  Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where does Walt say his work has been peer reviewed?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,16:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)
   
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,21:28)
I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course the private journals are peer-reviewed...many times even by Darwinists.  I know Walt Brown's theories are peer reviewed by evolutionists, but obviously, he's never going to get them accepted in mainstream science journals...it's freaking creation science...you know -- the stuff those hideous, money thirsty "liars" theorize about....lol, that accusation would seriously get Walt Brown giggling.  Believe me, he's not in it for the money...dig a little and you'll understand why I say that.

When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals.  Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where does Walt say his work has been peer reviewed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I already told you that it's not in his book that I know of.  Maybe it is....I don't know.  

Call the man *yourself* to get your answers.  I will certainly *NOT* contact him and tell him to give me a list of reviewers so that I can give that information to a bible bashing, Darwin pumping, hard core atheist (oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit) who is specifically out to bad mouth him at every *single* turn.

It doesn't matter who the reviewers were, you'd slam them endlessly regardless of their credentials or their work.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 03 2008,16:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a lie.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And this is a lie.

I'd call that a two-fer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,16:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 03 2008,16:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK, pls check your post from 10/4/2007, 22:00, where you did indeed state that Brown claimed his work had been peer reviewed by evolutionists/Darwinists. (I tried going back allllll those pages, but got a Forbidden - 403 error. ???)

And please, don't tell me you're going to try to equivocate by shading the meaning of "peer review

FWIW, FtK, I am certainly not trying to make a liar out of you.  Ye gads and little fishes, everyone makes mistakes!  So just admit it, learn from it, and go on for crying out loud.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,16:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is about the silliest thing I've read all day. I suppose if I wrote a paper about how we inherited our genes from bananas (by eating them!), and showed it to one of the resident geneticists here (who would laugh her ass off and tell me it's crap), I would be justified in calling my paper peer reviewed? Really? Seriously, I'd like you to answer this question.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2008,16:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is of course how peer review works and how most people inderstand the concept of peer review.

"Hello, cwose freind? Can my buk has peers reviewed?"
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,16:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:45)
I thought I already told you that it's not in his book that I know of.  Maybe it is....I don't know.  

Call the man *yourself* to get your answers.  I will certainly *NOT* contact him and tell him to give me a list of reviewers so that I can give that information to a bible bashing, Darwin pumping, hard core atheist (oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit) who is specifically out to bad mouth him at every *single* turn.

It doesn't matter who the reviewers were, you'd slam them endlessly regardless of their credentials or their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why make the claim if not in order to add legitimacy to his work?
Legitimacy it certainly has not earned by any reasonable definition of peer review.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,16:56

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,16:38)
Ah, well I never had the pleasure of meeting John. Read a few of his textbooks and more than a few of his papers, of course. As for 'prickly' . . . hard to say. I don't know if I'd call her pleasant, but happy might be a fair description, all told. And very, very sure of herself, to put it delicately. Of course, you'd have to be when walking into the jaws of a department that leaned heavily toward old-school adaptationists and surprisingly vocal population ecologists (to say nothing of what she must encounter and defend quite apart from her science, as evidenced by Sal's flippant . . .'humour'). It would certainly be entertaining to watch her mop the floor in a meeting of minds with the likes of Cordova, that's for damned sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, well John was also very very sure of himself as well.

And yes, what would be left of Sal after an encounter with an intellect like Roughgarden's would not be pretty at all...

thanks!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,16:58

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,16:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK, pls check your post from 10/4/2007, 22:00, where you did indeed state that Brown claimed his work had been peer reviewed by evolutionists/Darwinists. (I tried going back allllll those pages, but got a Forbidden - 403 error. ???)

And please, don't tell me you're going to try to equivocate by shading the meaning of "peer review

FWIW, FtK, I am certainly not trying to make a liar out of you.  Ye gads and little fishes, everyone makes mistakes!  So just admit it, learn from it, and go on for crying out loud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't go back and look at the post, because I will take your word for it.  If I said "Darwinists", then that was my error because I do not know that *for sure*.  I cannot remember *for sure* whether he told me that evolutionists had reviewed his work in a formal review.  I know he's talked with Darwinists about the theory, specifically (because it is documented and verifiable) Dr. Dietz.  But, he contacts scientists all the time about these issues.  I'm simply not lying about that.

I apologize for suggesting that you were calling me a liar, but it really seemed that way to me at the time.  

I promise you I have always been truthful about these issues.  All of them.

So in conclusion...his work has been peer reviewed, and I would have to contact him to find out exactly who those reviewers where.  I won't do that because I am not going to subject them to some of the people in this forum.  I also know that he has had endless conversations with evolutionists about his theory as well.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2008,17:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So in conclusion...his work has been peer reviewed, and I would have to contact him to find out exactly who those reviewers where.  I won't do that because I am not going to subject them to some of the people in this forum.  I also know that he has had endless conversations with evolutionists about his theory as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Plus, the statement "it's peer review" is looking shakier and shakier the more I think about at and given his propensity for making shit up I'm not sure I want to back that horse.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,17:00

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,17:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I simply cannot believe you would say something like this.  I wasn't looking for an "out".  I told you from the very start that I *wouldn't* give you a list of reviewers.  You have have treated me like shit and done everything in your power to make me out to be a liar from the very start.   I'm not going to watch you tear into people who actually consider creationist work.  And, I am NOT A LIAR.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,17:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When? Charles K. Johnson, Immanuel Velikovsky, L. Ron Hubbard and Wilhelm Reich all died a long time ago.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,17:07

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2008,17:12

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I simply cannot believe you would say something like this.  I wasn't looking for an "out".  I told you from the very start that I *wouldn't* give you a list of reviewers.  You have have treated me like shit and done everything in your power to make me out to be a liar from the very start.   I'm not going to watch you tear into people who actually consider creationist work.  And, I am NOT A LIAR.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you make the claim yet Walt does not, how can you call it anything but false advertising?

Why are you going round saying Walt's work has been peer reviewed if Walt himself does not?

If we have to take your word for it, it's hardly peer review is it?

Now, were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists" anyway?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,17:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2008,16:51)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is of course how peer review works and how most people inderstand the concept of peer review.

"Hello, cwose freind? Can my buk has peers reviewed?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, his peers reviewed it. It was reviewed by his aunt, this guy he knew who was always at the public library, this guy down the hall at his SRO hotel who claimed to be a physicist, this nice lady who read his water meter, and this guy who used to live down at the park who used to shout a lot. I think he's dead now.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?

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


Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,17:16

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Get back up on your cross lady.

Edited, because I can because I am not a post deleting tard, and also to add that in the original (see page 13) there were italics around 'advocate' and 'understand' to stress the point made again recently upthread by I think assassinator that 'understanding why someone may want to fuck their pet dolphin' is not the same as saying 'everyone should fuck their pet dolphin'.  Just that people get attached to things, and everyone has a hangup.  Some people it's fucking a zebra, for FtK it is a persecution complex and a hardened belief in a nonsense fairy tale that gives her a personal sense of meaning in the universe and keeps her from fucking crocodiles and murdering everyone at ATBC, because, see (and I'll bring this to a close, all heads bowed all eyes closed), Jesus Loves Her.  That is all She Knows.  And if you take that away from her, she is going to be pretty pissed.  Might even rape her grandmaw.  So, good people, let this crazy fool be.

And All The Lard's People Said:



Posted by: csadams on Jan. 03 2008,17:23

Y'see, FtK, many posters here are professional scientists who have had their work peer-reviewed.  In academia, "peer review" is generally accepted to mean that the research is anonymously critiqued by others qualified in that particular field.

Peer review can be brutal.  To even suggest that Brown has submitted his work for peer review is an insult to real scientists who have taken that risk.

It would be like me stating that I could out-model Heidi Klum based on the fact that my husband likes the way I look.  D'ya get the difference?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2008,17:23

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not putting any words in your mouth.  Let's take a look at these words of yours:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know you've had occasional struggles with the English language. so I'll explain.  Use of the word "formal" in the above sentence implies that there was an "informal" review.  There's no evidence that Dietz gave any sort of review whatsoever: formal, informal, casual, off-the-cuff... nothing in your link says anything about a review.

As you claim to have written exactly what you meant, how about showing us something to support your assertion that Dietz gave an informal peer-review of Brown's work?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,17:25

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2008,17:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with < Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory > many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.



*My contribution to International Understatement Week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, I think I could say just about anything and it would be wrong.  If I said peer reviewed or reviewed by peers in the wrong way, I apologize.  If there is some rule among scientists as to how and when to use those words, I am simply not aware of it.  

And, again, I honestly do not know what the problem is with the word condone!  I assure you that I will try very hard to remember to never use that word in this forum again.  It made perfect sense to me as I didn't want to say "advocates" or "condemns".  The perfect word to me is "condone".  It's exactly what I meant.

I still don't even know what the other definition of condone is.  No one has posted it unless I've missed it somewhere.
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,17:30

Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 03 2008,17:33

Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:36

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,17:38

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you certainly don't need to apologize.  I was just putting out a statement of general preference about what comments should go on which threads.

Mostly, I just think that all the bruhahaha over the Zoophilia Incident and Backlash is getting in the way of some serious--and well-deserved--mocking of Sal's writings.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,17:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Get back up on your cross lady.

Edited, because I can because I am not a post deleting tard, and also to add that in the original (see page 13) there were italics around 'advocate' and 'understand' to stress the point made again recently upthread by I think assassinator that 'understanding why someone may want to fuck their pet dolphin' is not the same as saying 'everyone should fuck their pet dolphin'.  Just that people get attached to things, and everyone has a hangup.  Some people it's fucking a zebra, for FtK it is a persecution complex and a hardened belief in a nonsense fairy tale that gives her a personal sense of meaning in the universe and keeps her from fucking crocodiles and murdering everyone at ATBC, because, see (and I'll bring this to a close, all heads bowed all eyes closed), Jesus Loves Her.  That is all She Knows.  And if you take that away from her, she is going to be pretty pissed.  Might even rape her grandmaw.  So, good people, let this crazy fool be.

And All The Lard's People Said:



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


You are an absolutely disgusting individual....full of hatred, and your portrait of me is so far from true it is unbelieveable.

You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.

You people certainly do not live by example.
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,17:42

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:03)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really....how many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism.
So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:46

Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,18:38)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you certainly don't need to apologize.  I was just putting out a statement of general preference about what comments should go on which threads.

Mostly, I just think that all the bruhahaha over the Zoophilia Incident and Backlash is getting in the way of some serious--and well-deserved--mocking of Sal's writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well as utterly moronic pointless as this thread has become, the truth is that it's all vaguely topical to the thread title.

Sort of appropriate, now that I think about it.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,17:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there is some rule among scientists as to how and when to use those words, I am simply not aware of it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review >

Did you really think that all this fuss about peer-review was simply whether or not it had been read by scientists?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still don't even know what the other definition of condone is.  No one has posted it unless I've missed it somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You missed it when I originally defended your use of the word < here. >

Frankly, I find your behavior over these word issues to be bizarre. When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!

OK, I'm sorry for putting this in the Sal thread, is there any way to move the conversation back where it belongs?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,17:47

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:36)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerk.  We are not "joined at the hip".  I don't even know Sal personally.  I've talked to him once, and I've exchanged about 7 email with him.  From what I've read from his posts at UD, I agree with him about many issues, but I certainly do not agree with him about everything and vise versa.  

I do not support him when he uses belittling humor like the antics I find here.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:49

Ok, Walt Brown stuff needs to go on the Ftk thread.

Cordova's garbage and Ftk's silly attempts at defending his putrescence should remain here, however.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 03 2008,17:51

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,17:36)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,18:33)
Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, not your fault at all.  The two are joined at the hip, and with Ftk's attention craving martyrdom issues, it was both unsurprising and quite possibly inevitable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerk.  We are not "joined at the hip".  I don't even know Sal personally.  I've talked to him once, and I've exchanged about 7 email with him.  From what I've read from his posts at UD, I agree with him about many issues, but I certainly do not agree with him about everything and vise versa.  

I do not support him when he uses belittling humor like the antics I find here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But do you condone him?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,17:56

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2008,18:51)
But do you condone him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Geez.  Not again.

**Whops Arden upside the head**

Condone that.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,18:02

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,17:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:03)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really....how many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism.
So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.  They can say that some forms of bestiality may by hazardous to your health for a variety of reasons.  But, they can't say they are immoral.  It is not "immoral" to sleep with your brother, it is not "immoral" for a women to have sexual relations with another women just because they met in a bar and felt the need to achieve orgasm - no strings attached.  It is not "immoral" to cut a child from it's mother's womb at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,18:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL, that does sound bizarre!  Here's the deal.  I must go down on record saying that I believe that "condone" is the best word to use in this instance.  I'll remember to use the synonyms in the future at this forum.

As far as the definition of moral relativism, here is mine:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 03 2008,18:14

Christians don't have a moral base too, are you the same as those wierdos from the Westboro Baptist Church?? I think not. Are you a Jehova Witniss? Are all Christians the same?
You're not just putting atheists into boxes, you're just stuffing them into 1 big ballroom. I'm an atheist, how do you know I base my moral beleives on evolution? If you have payed attention, or did any proper research, you would know that evolution has nothing to do with morality in the way we're talking about it. Evolution is science, science does not dictate morality, it only discribes things.
Your generalisation is awfull. And what's the foundation of this generalisation anyway? What made you think those things?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,18:22

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,19:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk: All you've done is define "morality" such that your conclusion must be true. To whit: "morals" for you are BY DEFINITION universal, absolute, unchanging, and God-given. Then, of course, atheists must BY DEFINITION lack a moral base, and by implication lack morality.  

But here is the definition my (online) dictionary produces:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
moral |?môr?l; ?mär-|
adjective

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character : the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society : an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code.
• holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct : he is a caring, efficient, moral man.
• derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these : the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct : moral philosophers.
noun
1 a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience : the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has.
2 ( morals) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do : the corruption of public morals.
• standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable : they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's it. You notice the complete absence of "universal," "absolute," "unchanging," and "God-given."

Most atheists, agnostics, and others who don't share your religious predelictions remain interested in a code of interpersonal behavior, proper conduct, ethical principles, standards of behavior and so on. It is only by insisting upon your own, idiosyncratic and inherently religious definition that you can argue that they are not. Indeed, IMHO, they are more likely to have given the ethical questions and dilemmas with which they are confronted real thought, because canned, absolutist, and ultimately authoritarian solutions to those dilemmas are not of interest to them.
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,18:24

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,18:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL, that does sound bizarre!  Here's the deal.  I must go down on record saying that I believe that "condone" is the best word to use in this instance.  I'll remember to use the synonyms in the future at this forum.

As far as the definition of moral relativism, here is mine:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Not basing one's morals on some alleged "universal standard" != basing one's morals on "nothing."
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,18:27

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,18:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,19:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk: All you've done is define "morality" such that your conclusion must be true. To whit: "morals" for you are BY DEFINITION universal, absolute, unchanging, and God-given. Then, of course, atheists must BY DEFINITION lack a moral base, and by implication lack morality.  

But here is the definition my (online) dictionary produces:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
moral |?môr?l; ?mär-|
adjective

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character : the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society : an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code.
• holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct : he is a caring, efficient, moral man.
• derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these : the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct : moral philosophers.
noun
1 a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience : the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has.
2 ( morals) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do : the corruption of public morals.
• standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable : they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's it. You notice the complete absence of "universal," "absolute," "unchanging," and "God-given."

Most atheists, agnostics, and others who don't share your religious predelictions remain interested in a code of interpersonal behavior, proper conduct, ethical principles, standards of behavior and so on. It is only by insisting upon your own, idiosyncratic and inherently religious definition that you can argue that they are not. Indeed, IMHO, they are more likely to have given the ethical questions and dilemmas with which they are confronted real thought, because canned, absolutist, and ultimately authoritarian solutions to those dilemmas are not of interest to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly what I said--only a lot better!   :D
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 03 2008,18:31

In your world, FtK, do bears steal picnic baskets and pull pranks on park rangers?
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,18:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,18:02)
There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right. As opposed to being either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place feel it will affect God's opinion of them. Billions of years of selection have nothing on the eternal applicability of Levitical Law, transubstantiation, racial intermarriage, women clergy (or even speaking in church), etc., eh? And an evolutionary sense of fairness shared among distantly related species (look up unequal pay and expectation of fairness in capuchin monkeys some time) is downright schismatic compared to the unified base of beliefs shared by Christendom...all 10,000+ sects of that unity. Oh, wait. You were talking atheists vs. theists -- surely theists as a whole are even more united in their moral base.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Jan. 03 2008,18:44

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,00:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.  They can say that some forms of bestiality may by hazardous to your health for a variety of reasons.  But, they can't say they are immoral.  It is not "immoral" to sleep with your brother, it is not "immoral" for a women to have sexual relations with another women just because they met in a bar and felt the need to achieve orgasm - no strings attached.  It is not "immoral" to cut a child from it's mother's womb at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mein gott....

Ok, technically, this is mostly correct. Unfortunately, any kudos you would have had might well have been immediately invalidated by one teensy little thing right at the start.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Err....how do you mean evolutionry FtK? Evolutionary as in "it changes" or as in "molecule to man" or some similar biological meaning.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,18:56

Hol' up Hol' up Hol' up


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I said was that they have no true base for morality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have no 'true base for morality' either.

You believe in fairy tales.  

Edited to Add:

Talking snakes.  Eight people and a boat load of animals and venereal disease.  Talking burning bushes (not Nandina).  Zombie haploid lighter than water Redeemer of All Mankind.

Be honest, thou impostor.  YOU don't have a true base for morality.  That is why you are patently dishonest and misrepresent others.  Because of your insecurities and martyr complex.  And you love it.

Edited to Edit to Add:

This applies to Sal too.  Just to get back on topic, Lou.

now, incorygible, taking moral lessons from fairy tales is fine.  that is what they are for.  taking them as literal truth and the base of a philosophy that is used to oppress others and distort the truth is not.  That is what you see here.  

Some people you just can't reach, they are too far in the bottom of the latrine.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,18:59

We're beginning to stray afield of Sal and his (utter and complete lack of) morals, his blog, or his stupidity.

If we're not going to get back to Young Cosmos and the vacuity and idiocy of that place, then we need to move this conversation back to Ftk's thread.
Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2008,18:59

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,18:56)
You have no 'true base for morality' either.

You believe in fairy tales.

Be honest, thou impostor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing wrong with that. Aesop's fables (old testament?) combined with the Grimm tales (new testament?) would probably provide an effective, consistent and shared 'true base for morality'. Christian exegesis, on the other hand. . .
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 03 2008,19:13

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,18:59)
We're beginning to stray afield of Sal and his (utter and complete lack of) morals, his blog, or his stupidity.

If we're not going to get back to Young Cosmos and the vacuity and idiocy of that place, then we need to move this conversation back to Ftk's thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So true, and I was part of the problem this time.  

*Hangs head in shame*

;)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,19:35

Ok, the proselytizing is rather inappropriate for this forum.


Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2008,19:37

Ftk (and others),

In the interest of organization, I've left a lengthy (for me - not for Louis) reply to Ftk's statement that atheists have no basis for morality in the Ftk thread. I'm not demanding that I get replied to first, but perhaps we should move that discussion back over there.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,19:39

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2008,20:37)
Ftk (and others),

In the interest of organization, I've left a lengthy (for me - not for Louis) reply to Ftk's statement that atheists have no basis for morality in the Ftk thread. I'm not demanding that I get replied to first, but perhaps we should move that discussion back over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 03 2008,19:46

From < PZ's Palace >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After reading Prof. Myers sanctimonious moral condemnation of libertarians I don't see where he gets off complaining about someone criticizing the political positions his daughter takes.

Presumably he believes his daughter can stand on her own two feet since he allows her to blog about bestiality. Either her voice opinions can stand up to criticism or they cannot.

Sure she began with: "Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."

Ok, I can believe that.

Then she writes: "Ever owned a dog? They'll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don't have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex?"

Then: "Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?"

She further adds in the comments: "Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons."

Her writing makes it clear that she thinks such behavior should be legal but further she gives the distinct impression that she sees little wrong with it.

So the natural question is, what if she had a change of heart and did have "a personal interest in bestiality", or did want to "hump animals". Suppose one day she just happened not to have her pants on when the dog poked his nose in there and this time she liked it? I don't see by her argument why she wouldn't go for it and "maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex."

In which case Prof. Myers just might be in a position where his daughter is buying a larger breed of dog. Is it such a stretch for the other guy to mock Myers that his daughter might just bring home a peccary as a husband?

Why these complains of "quote mining" the article was only written a few months ago and probably just came to his attention. Furthermore, the quotes don't really distort what she was saying. She seems to have no notion that getting oral sex from the dog might be wrong for some reason or another. To her it's "complication-free". I guess so till your dad finds out, or worse the neighborhood.

Considering her additional comment about incest just be thankful the picture of the peccary wasn't a picture of Prof. Myers. Especially considering that there was a recent scientific paper showing that human incest might not be so incredibly dangerous from a genetic standpoint as popularly believed.

Why the moral invective against libertarians when it appears that his own daughter goes beyond legalizing certain behavior and actually seems to think it's morally acceptable.

Not sure how old she is as her blog doesn't say, but someone here claims she's 17. Not sure what the law is on having these kinds of discussions with a 17 year old over the internet in Minnesota so I think I'll refrain from that.

I'm certainly interested in what moral (or other) arguments Prof. Myers would give to his daughter on this subject. That's the angle he's being attacked.

I know what I would have to say but I'm not sure what he would. I think it's a valid question from their perspective. The religious can say "God says no" and they aren't aware of what an atheist would say to their daughter in this case.

BTW, based on his moral denunciation of libertarians as having "bourgeois values" I get the distinct feeling Myers is a Marxist. I'd also be interested in how he can justify moral condemnation for "bourgeois values" when apparently he hasn't even instructed his child throughly enough to even recognize bestiality as immoral.

First he finds "libertarians represent the worst of America" and calls them "My least favorite political/economic group". Which would mean he likes Nazis and racial separatists more. Now he seems to have taught his daughter a moral reasoning that finds incest and zoophilia morally acceptable. Not sure what to make of this. A great man Milton Freedman is some kind of moral leper to him and it seems like he might think someone who's buggering their dog isn't.

Just so you don't get confused. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true and the theory of natural selection is the best model of how it works. So I'm not here to defend the creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,19:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,20:46)
From < PZ's Palace >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After reading Prof. Myers sanctimonious moral condemnation of libertarians I don't see where he gets off complaining about someone criticizing the political positions his daughter takes.

(snip rant)

Just so you don't get confused. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true and the theory of natural selection is the best model of how it works. So I'm not here to defend the creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


< The reply, from our very own Ichthyic >



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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just so you don't get confused
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



we're not confused, Macker.

we know from past experience you say stupid shit all the time.

no worries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 03 2008,20:09

It is only fair to acknowledge < this >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...It seems my humor at Skatje’s expense (here) ruffled her feathers pretty badly...

...I try to be a gentleman on occasion. Along those lines, I extend my apology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, Sal, resist, OH RESIST the temptation to turn this into notpology.
*RB glances at watch*
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,20:10


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,20:12

FtK no wonder you like that post from PZs.  It's your favorite style:  argument from consequences (what if your neighbors find out!!!)

The reason that this is on topic wrt Sal is that there is virtually NO ONE ELSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE that respects anything that you have to say.  I know that some did for a while.  But you are batshit crazy and you consort with ne'er-do-wells, miscreants, woebegottens, vagabonds, nomads, wastrels, rogues and other nefarious villiany types.  

Anyone with any integrity doesn't give a damn what Sal or you have to say.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2008,20:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,20:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,20:46)
From < PZ's Palace >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After reading Prof. Myers sanctimonious moral condemnation of libertarians I don't see where he gets off complaining about someone criticizing the political positions his daughter takes.

(snip rant)

Just so you don't get confused. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true and the theory of natural selection is the best model of how it works. So I'm not here to defend the creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


< The reply, from our very own Ichthyic >

 

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just so you don't get confused
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



we're not confused, Macker.

we know from past experience you say stupid shit all the time.

no worries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I wouldn't get my political analysis from PZ any more than I would get my biology from a political scientist. It's simply not his area of expertise.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,20:33

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2008,21:28)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,20:49)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,20:46)
From < PZ's Palace >:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After reading Prof. Myers sanctimonious moral condemnation of libertarians I don't see where he gets off complaining about someone criticizing the political positions his daughter takes.

(snip rant)

Just so you don't get confused. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true and the theory of natural selection is the best model of how it works. So I'm not here to defend the creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


< The reply, from our very own Ichthyic >

     

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just so you don't get confused
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



we're not confused, Macker.

we know from past experience you say stupid shit all the time.

no worries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I wouldn't get my political analysis from PZ any more than I would get my biology from a political scientist. It's simply not his area of expertise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this a test?

The only one bringing up "politics" was the idiot commenter that Ftk quoted, and as far as I could tell, it was totally a non-seq.

He was just looking for an excuse to bring it up.

Edited because I really don't know enough about him to be calling him an idiot, I've only bumped into his comments on that thread.


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2008,20:49

I haven't read the thread. I just made that comment because it's bizarre to me that someone would really care about the political opinions of a biologist with no particular expertise in political or economic theory. Even bizarrer that someone would care about the political opinions of the biologist's teenage daughter.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2008,20:54

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2008,21:49)
I haven't read the thread. I just made that comment because it's bizarre to me that someone would really care about the political opinions of a biologist with no particular expertise in political or economic theory. Even bizarrer that someone would care about the political opinions of the biologist's teenage daughter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The thread's become a train wreck, and it's heavily influenced this thread because of the connection to Slimy Sal.

I agree though, bizarre.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 03 2008,21:18

Re Roughgarden, I had the fortune to have lunch with this person just a few weeks after september 11.  I was quite amazed at the lunacy I heard during that lunch session, she rambled about hyper-evolution within the Taliban, supported by two things:  family connections to power and the fact that they all looked alike!!!!  I really had a hard time keeping my mouth shut about that, esp since all the other grad students were kissing ass and wanking about their research (yeah, who cares, right?  that's why visiting seminar speakers visit your school, to hear about how you catch striped bass in a ferris wheel looking thing).  

It was rather entertaining though, she made so many comments about Jesse Helms that I just had to play devil's advocate and pretend to support him (actually the argument was, Hell, he's just what the people of NC want!!!  Re-elected him since Moses!!!!  Do you know better than hundreds of thousands of other people?  not a strong argument, but it does turn the emotional tables).  Turned into an interesting conversation after that and I think she realized she'd overplayed her hand and calmed down.  Couple of the kiss up grad students looked at me like I had called her the things they were thinking in their own heads.

Good times.  That is a weird bird there.  Really sharp, but I completely disagree with a lot of what Roughgarden says though.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 03 2008,21:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,20:54)
The thread's become a train wreck, and it's heavily influenced this thread because of the connection to Slimy Sal.

I agree though, bizarre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. It's all my fault, too. If I hadn't < pointed to FtK's fingerprints > on Sal's wretched post back on page 9 or whatever, none of this would have happened. FtK would not be banned at Pharyngula, and Sal and Skatje would probably be best friends by now. Unless Sal's peccary is the jealous sort...

Please forgive me.  I'll go back to the FtK thread and behave myself now.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,07:28

Hey, what happened to the Trackback widget in the sidebar at Young Cosmos????

*snicker*

JanieBelle has a clue...
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 04 2008,07:44

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,07:28)
Hey, what happened to the Trackback widget in the sidebar at Young Cosmos????

*snicker*

JanieBelle has a clue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh... I knew it was too good to last. I got a buttload of traffic from Young Cosmos yesterday.

There's some nifty screen caps of the "Recent Comments" sidebar < here >.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,07:55

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,08:44)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,07:28)
Hey, what happened to the Trackback widget in the sidebar at Young Cosmos????

*snicker*

JanieBelle has a clue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh... I knew it was too good to last. I got a buttload of traffic from Young Cosmos yesterday.

There's some nifty screen caps of the "Recent Comments" sidebar < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Janie had an all time record day within an hour of PZ making his post about Sal's award.  Yesterday was almost three times THAT number.

There is a huge number of people out there that are now keenly aware of just what sort of folks inhabit Young Cosmos.

The girls and I love Ftk's latest, amazing, huge, earth-shattering discovery.  Made our morning.

:D
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,07:59

:p  :p You look absolutely lovely in that shade of red, Lou.  So Purdy!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 04 2008,08:02

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,18:31)
In your world, FtK, do bears steal picnic baskets and pull pranks on park rangers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and did she condone it?  :)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:02

Thank you.  My dead Aunt who requested that would have been proud, and tickled.

I notice that you didn't mention the whole story at Young Cosmos.  Sorta like quotemining via photograph.

That's a new trick.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 04 2008,08:23

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,07:55)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,08:44)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,07:28)
Hey, what happened to the Trackback widget in the sidebar at Young Cosmos????

*snicker*

JanieBelle has a clue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh... I knew it was too good to last. I got a buttload of traffic from Young Cosmos yesterday.

There's some nifty screen caps of the "Recent Comments" sidebar < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Janie had an all time record day within an hour of PZ making his post about Sal's award.  Yesterday was almost three times THAT number.

There is a huge number of people out there that are now keenly aware of just what sort of folks inhabit Young Cosmos.

The girls and I love Ftk's latest, amazing, huge, earth-shattering discovery.  Made our morning.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep in mind FtK is under the impression that:

a) Walt Brown is doing science

b) Sal Cordova is a nice person

c) naming her blog "Reasonable Kansans" gives people the impression that she's a reasonable person.

While it's funny as hell, it doesn't surprise me in the least that she thought JanieBelle was real.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:26

Ftk, I know that you're intellectually challenged, and that you suffer from a massive, MONUMENTAL martyrdom complex, but honestly.  It's not hard.

If you wish to discuss UDoJ, there is a thread for that.

If you want to discuss my Aunt or me, do it at my blog.  The link is in my sig, which you have apparently missed for months on end.

If you wish to take cheap shots at me, do it at your blog.

If you wish to discuss Young Cosmos, that goes here.



ETA:  I really try hard to find new photos for each BW marker, but this one is just so damned appropriate.


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2008,08:30

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,08:27)
Yeah, I thought Janiebelle was real.  There are all kinds of freaky sex addicts on the Internet.  Though, when I found out it was Lou, it became even freakier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,

On topic question.

What is the single most convincing piece of physical evidence that for you shows that the cosmos is young?

For me, it's hard to pick the most compelling argument, but I suppose the most obvious one is that visually the universe is very very very large. It could not be 6000 years old unless our understanding of large amounts of physics is very wrong indeed.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,08:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to discuss my Aunt or me, do it at my blog.  The link is in my sig, which you have apparently missed for months on end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like I said at YC, Lou...I didn't pay much attention to you at all when first posting here.  You didn't post that often that I remember, or if you did, you must not have said anything interesting enough to catch my attention.  

I ran across "Janiebelle" at Kristine's place.  I didn't put two and two together for about a month because there was no reason to.  That was some time ago, and actually I did figure it out from you sig after you started posting more frequently.

Interesting hobby you've got going there....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2008,08:36

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,08:34)
Interesting hobby you've got going there....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not as interesting as Ted Haggart's.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:38

Edit:

Well, she did mention YC.  That's sorta tangential.


Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 04 2008,08:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:26)
Ftk, I know that you're intellectually challenged, and that you suffer from a massive, MONUMENTAL martyrdom complex, but honestly.  It's not hard.

If you wish to discuss UDoJ, there is a thread for that.

If you want to discuss my Aunt or me, do it at my blog.  The link is in my sig, which you have apparently missed for months on end.

If you wish to take cheap shots at me, do it at your blog.

If you wish to discuss Young Cosmos, that goes here.



ETA:  I really try hard to find new photos for each BW marker, but this one is just so damned appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a suggestion, Lou... maybe you could temporarily lock this thread until we can corral FtK back into her cage? If she wants to defend Slimy Sal, she can do it in her own thread.

I mean, I realize that FtK is free to post in any of the threads here, but no matter which thread she's in she's going to make it all about her. So we might as well try to contain the mess.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:41

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,08:34)
Interesting hobby you've got going there....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, exposing liars and making fun of them very publicly is an amusing passtime.

ETA: Like < Slimy Sal > fer instance (just to be topical.)


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 04 2008,08:42

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,08:38)
I mean, I realize that FtK is free to post in any of the threads here, but no matter which thread she's in she's going to make it all about her. So we might as well try to contain the mess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'It's a mess, ain't it Sheriff?'

'If it ain't, it'll do till a mess gets here.'
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:48

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,09:38)
Just a suggestion, Lou...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the input, Mister D., but moderation discussion needs to travel via PM.

Just a friendly reminder (and a preemptive strike).
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 04 2008,08:49

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:48)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,09:38)
Just a suggestion, Lou...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the input, Mister D., but moderation discussion needs to travel via PM.

Just a friendly reminder (and a preemptive strike).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry about that. I honestly didn't know.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 04 2008,08:50

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2008,09:42)
'It's a mess, ain't it Sheriff?'

'If it ain't, it'll do till a mess gets here.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Country for Old Men, right?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:51



ETA: Right at the bottom of the page there is this link:

< Read the Board Rules >


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,08:54

LOL, I'm thinking I'm really not all that "boring". :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:55

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,09:49)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:48)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,09:38)
Just a suggestion, Lou...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the input, Mister D., but moderation discussion needs to travel via PM.

Just a friendly reminder (and a preemptive strike).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry about that. I honestly didn't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't sweat it.  It happens.  We all do it from time to time, even after we know better.

Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 04 2008,08:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:55)
Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget his < high income and not-inexpensive tuxedo >!

Edit: linky added
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,08:57

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:54)
LOL, I'm thinking I'm really not all that "boring". :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At times we all are.

Your great discovery at YC this morning was entertaining, I'll grant you.

:p
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2008,08:59

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2008,09:42)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 04 2008,08:38)
I mean, I realize that FtK is free to post in any of the threads here, but no matter which thread she's in she's going to make it all about her. So we might as well try to contain the mess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'It's a mess, ain't it Sheriff?'

'If it ain't, it'll do till a mess gets here.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


funniest line in the movie.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2008,08:59

Hey FTK,

Just wondering.

We know you think the earth is 6000 years old.

Do you also think the entire solar system is also 6000 years old? Or just the earth?

Do you think the universe itself is 6000 years old? Or is the generally accepted age for the universe acceptable to you?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2008,09:02

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 04 2008,09:57)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:55)
Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget his < high income and not-inexpensive tuxedo >!

Edit: linky added
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


at that linky:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Darwinists wonder why the public at large in the USA rejects them. Jonathan Wells offers his thoughts:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, if you want to talk about public rejection, having a freaking Moonie around is a good start.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,09:02

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 04 2008,09:57)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:55)
Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget his < high income and not-inexpensive tuxedo >!

Edit: linky added
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad formalwear?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2008,09:06

To go along with the < Argumentum ad Populum > that creationists are too stupid to avoid.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,09:10

Lou, did one of my posts just disappear into space?  I was responding to OM.

Where did it go, man?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,09:13

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,10:02)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 04 2008,09:57)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:55)
Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget his < high income and not-inexpensive tuxedo >!

Edit: linky added
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad formalwear?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Sal should try a matching < Argumentum ad Footwear > to go with that.

Edited:  Forgot a closing tag.


Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,09:15

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,10:10)
Lou, did one of my posts just disappear into space?  I was responding to OM.

Where did it go, man?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There'd be a picture of toilet graffiti if I had moved it to the BW.

There were several moves earlier, but not just now.


Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 04 2008,09:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,09:02)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 04 2008,09:57)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,08:55)
Now, let's get back to discussing Sal and his high moral standards, and overwhelming intellectual capacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget his < high income and not-inexpensive tuxedo >!

Edit: linky added
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad formalwear?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn. If only Darwin would have included some smart fashion tips in The Origin of Species, this whole mess could have been avoided.

Curse you, Salvador Cordova!
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 04 2008,09:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:10)
Lou, did one of my posts just disappear into space?  I was responding to OM.

Where did it go, man?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fear not, Ftk, your message has resonated with the masses: I appropriated one of your lines for my signature.  

And here is your entire comment, on the < Bathroom Wall >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 04 2008,09:24

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 04 2008,09:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:10)
Lou, did one of my posts just disappear into space?  I was responding to OM.

Where did it go, man?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fear not, Ftk, your message has resonated with the masses: I appropriated one of your lines for my signature.  

And here is your entire comment, on the < Bathroom Wall >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Oleg, you left off the best part of that quote. It ends with "See the difference?"

To which one can only say, "Oh, yeah!"

congrats on that paper in Nature, BTW!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,09:41

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 04 2008,09:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:10)
Lou, did one of my posts just disappear into space?  I was responding to OM.

Where did it go, man?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fear not, Ftk, your message has resonated with the masses: I appropriated one of your lines for my signature.  

And here is your entire comment, on the < Bathroom Wall >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, olegt!  I don't know why he moved it there.  It's totally relevant to the discussions we've been having here the past 2 days.

I think I'm starting to like you olegt...you seem like a decent fellow.  But, I probably shouldn't admit that here because it will put you in a rather bad light.  Sorry.

Oh, btw, I'd be interested in reading you paper.  Probably wouldn't understand a word of it, but it's kinda cool to read stuff written by people you come in contact with on the Internet.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,09:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Oleg, you left off the best part of that quote. It ends with "See the difference?"

To which one can only say, "Oh, yeah!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's quite interesting.  

I guess I didn't take you for the closet transvestite/Internet porn/dreaming of 21 year old girls-getting-slimy type.

Learn something new every day....yeah, biblical morals wouldn't be your cup of tea.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 04 2008,09:49

Oh, btw, you guys be sure to read all of the comments in the Sal thread at PZ's Palace.  That is the most hilarious thread I've ever read.  Last time I checked in they were discussing whether it was legal or moral to marry a dildo...they were serious.

ROTFLMAO

What a cesspool...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2008,09:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2008,08:59)
Hey FTK,

Just wondering.

We know you think the earth is 6000 years old.

Do you also think the entire solar system is also 6000 years old? Or just the earth?

Do you think the universe itself is 6000 years old? Or is the generally accepted age for the universe acceptable to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd much rather have a response to this.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,09:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,10:45)
yeah, biblical morals wouldn't be your cup of tea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well given the fine examples of biblical morals we have at hand...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 04 2008,09:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Oleg, you left off the best part of that quote. It ends with "See the difference?"

To which one can only say, "Oh, yeah!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's quite interesting.  

I guess I didn't take you for the closet transvestite/Internet porn/dreaming of 21 year old girls-getting-slimy type.

Learn something new every day....yeah, biblical morals wouldn't be your cup of tea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the kids step by step well poisoning guide!

1) Find water source
2) find a point upstream to add toxins if its a fast moving water source
3) add toxins
4) Sit back and watch the carnage!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 04 2008,10:23

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,10:49)
Oh, btw, you guys be sure to read all of the comments in the Sal thread at PZ's Palace.  That is the most hilarious thread I've ever read.  Last time I checked in they were discussing whether it was legal or moral to marry a dildo...they were serious.

ROTFLMAO

What a cesspool...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have to think about that. Meanwhile, < here > is a wedding dress contructed from 12,500 condoms.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 04 2008,10:34

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Oleg, you left off the best part of that quote. It ends with "See the difference?"

To which one can only say, "Oh, yeah!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's quite interesting.  

I guess I didn't take you for the closet transvestite/Internet porn/dreaming of 21 year old girls-getting-slimy type.

Learn something new every day....yeah, biblical morals wouldn't be your cup of tea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before I go with my own interpretation of what you meant by this, I'll let you explain for yourself.

What does this mean, and to whom was it directed?

thanks
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,10:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK,

Awesome Job finding that pic of Lou!

Great investigative reporting.

Sal

Comment by scordova — January 4, 2008 @ 11:48 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please tell me that was tongue-in-cheek.

ETA: Forgot the link - < Link >


Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 04 2008,10:51

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 04 2008,10:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK,

Awesome Job finding that pic of Lou!

Great investigative reporting.

Sal

Comment by scordova — January 4, 2008 @ 11:48 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please tell me that was tongue-in-cheek.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her tongue in his cheek.
No, the other cheeks.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2008,12:49



Whole buncha stuff with nothing whatever to do with Young Cosmos.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 04 2008,12:58

Swivel unicorns?

Never mind...

Anyway, Sal has shown his class again.  But it is a politician he's being ungenerous to, so I'm not sure it counts:

< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/173 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said, at least for now, it appears that we won’t have to worry about having < the anti-Christ for President >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All this time I've been thinking that Galapagos Finch was wMad.  But perhaps it's Sal.

Bob
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 05 2008,07:27

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 04 2008,13:58)
Swivel unicorns?

Never mind...

Anyway, Sal has shown his class again.  But it is a politician he's being ungenerous to, so I'm not sure it counts:

< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/173 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said, at least for now, it appears that we won’t have to worry about having < the anti-Christ for President >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All this time I've been thinking that Galapagos Finch was wMad.  But perhaps it's Sal.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Sal did say he was going to quit using his own name when he posts his tard publicly.

Of course, Young Cosmos throws that right out the window, so I'm not sure what the point would be.

ETA:  Oh right.  Sal.  Nevermind.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 05 2008,18:21

Sal continues the waaaah Baylor theme at YC (I won't link to it, cause he doesn't deserve it. Instead I'll quote mine him, just because he loves it so.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, I shouldn’t have to worry about studying engineering or physics because I reject Darwinism, but the forces enforcing political correctness cost me and other grad students an opportunity at Baylor when they shut down distinguished professor Robert Mark’s evolutionary informatics lab. All told, the Darwinists cost me (and if not me, another grad student) $40,000 in tuition and stipends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two quick points.

1) Since Sal is currently allegedly studying "engineering or physics" at a much better institution than Baylor, he should be thanking the evil darwinismus rather than blaming them.

2) AFAIK, Mark's lab is still running. The controversy was over a web server. If Marks wanted Sal to be there, he could still have him. One can only hope that this is a sign of sanity on Marks' part.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 05 2008,20:36

One wonders how much his current advisors knew of his character and internet shenanigans.  It would be hard to get me excited about a candidate student with that much... how-you-say-.. flambuoyancy?  Especially since he thinks that the earth is you know still under warranty it's so fresh and that if someone one the ark didn't have herpes, then the sacrifice of Christ wouldnt make sense and there'd be no atonement, so it must therefore be true that the Bible is the Ward of Gawd and ignorance is strength.  

mebbe he's cracking up.  but what is the reference for such a diagnosis.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 05 2008,21:00

Erasmus,

Sal's not a Ph. D. candidate.  He is taking evening classes towards a master's degree in physics:
< My retreat from the public view…. >

No word yet on future plans.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 05 2008,22:27

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2008,21:00)
Erasmus,

Sal's not a Ph. D. candidate.  He is taking evening classes towards a master's degree in physics:
< My retreat from the public view…. >

No word yet on future plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's going to overthrow....













....reality.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 05 2008,23:25

Sal:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, let me tell you Jeff Shallit, I’m an ID proponent and I’m not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo because my tuxedo costs lots of money.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Argueing that Sal isn't a creationist because he spent too much money to dress up follows the same logic as The Emperor's new Clothes.


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 05 2008,23:56

Due to the way Sal talks about his appearnce in Nature I am pretty sure he bought the tuxedo to be prepared for a phone call from Stockholm. However, as reported on the < CRWU pages > laureates are not stupid and only buy a piece of clothing that you can not really use at other occasions after receiving the phone call:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1954, Frederick Robbins entered Bunce Bros. men's store on Shaker Square in search of a black tuxedo to buy. The young salesman who waited on his was startled, since someone actually buying a tuxedo was exceedingly rare. "What did you do, win the Nobel Prize?" the salesman cracked irreverently. As a matter of fact, he had. Robbins informed the salesman that he was going to Stockholm for the ceremony. After a moment of stunned silence, the salesman removed his foot from his mouth and found Robbins a fine tuxedo to take along on the Queen Elizabeth into the annals of medical history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

BTW, a friend of mine who worked at the Karolinska Institute and and once was invited to join the ceremony told me that nobody there would buy a tuxedo because it's much cheaper to rent one.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 06 2008,02:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Since Sal is currently allegedly studying "engineering or physics" at a much better institution than Baylor, he should be thanking the evil darwinismus rather than blaming them.

2) AFAIK, Mark's lab is still running. The controversy was over a web server. If Marks wanted Sal to be there, he could still have him. One can only hope that this is a sign of sanity on Marks' part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


3) It was Sal who declined the offer/possibility to work at Baylor.  It's not clear to me what Marks' position on Sal is.  So, the forces of Darwinism only cost Baylor the chance to educate a posturing coward.

Bob
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 06 2008,02:29

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,00:56)
Due to the way Sal talks about his appearnce in Nature I am pretty sure he bought the tuxedo to be prepared for a phone call from Stockholm. However, as reported on the < CRWU pages > laureates are not stupid and only buy a piece of clothing that you can not really use at other occasions after receiving the phone call:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1954, Frederick Robbins entered Bunce Bros. men's store on Shaker Square in search of a black tuxedo to buy. The young salesman who waited on his was startled, since someone actually buying a tuxedo was exceedingly rare. "What did you do, win the Nobel Prize?" the salesman cracked irreverently. As a matter of fact, he had. Robbins informed the salesman that he was going to Stockholm for the ceremony. After a moment of stunned silence, the salesman removed his foot from his mouth and found Robbins a fine tuxedo to take along on the Queen Elizabeth into the annals of medical history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

BTW, a friend of mine who worked at the Karolinska Institute and and once was invited to join the ceremony told me that nobody there would buy a tuxedo because it's much cheaper to rent one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've gotta dress according to the situation.

When I'm in Ri-O
And I'm walkin' on the beach
I'm in my Speed-O...


(I tried to find the pic of Homer but didn't see it)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 06 2008,02:34

Oh I dunno.  The Nobel is pretty special.  I'd be tempted to buy a tux and keep it as a souvenir.  I'd probably also steal some silverware.  Maybe a centerpiece from the table, depending on the size of my pockets.

:p
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 06 2008,02:42

It's probably kind of like the US presidency, where everything is embossed and labelled down to the ashtrays and on your way out the door you steal everything you can that isn't nailed down or protected by guys with Uzis and sunglasses.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2008,05:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2008,02:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Since Sal is currently allegedly studying "engineering or physics" at a much better institution than Baylor, he should be thanking the evil darwinismus rather than blaming them.

2) AFAIK, Mark's lab is still running. The controversy was over a web server. If Marks wanted Sal to be there, he could still have him. One can only hope that this is a sign of sanity on Marks' part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


3) It was Sal who declined the offer/possibility to work at Baylor.  It's not clear to me what Marks' position on Sal is.  So, the forces of Darwinism only cost Baylor the chance to educate a posturing coward.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC Sal's "expelled" story of persecution had it slightly differently. IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.

It's here somewhere
< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 06 2008,07:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2008,06:22)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2008,02:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Since Sal is currently allegedly studying "engineering or physics" at a much better institution than Baylor, he should be thanking the evil darwinismus rather than blaming them.

2) AFAIK, Mark's lab is still running. The controversy was over a web server. If Marks wanted Sal to be there, he could still have him. One can only hope that this is a sign of sanity on Marks' part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


3) It was Sal who declined the offer/possibility to work at Baylor.  It's not clear to me what Marks' position on Sal is.  So, the forces of Darwinism only cost Baylor the chance to educate a posturing coward.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC Sal's "expelled" story of persecution had it slightly differently. IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.

It's here somewhere
< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Crap!  First the Darwinistas prevent the IDCH people from publishing in their own journals, now they're preventing them from hiring Sal in their own labs????//??questionmarkqueestionmark???

That's some serious power, baby!  Who do I have to sleep with to get me a place at the table?  I want to work on stopping them from speaking in churches.  Y'know, make 'em be silent like the weemins.

ETA: Oh, plus I want to help take the Christ out of Christmas and force people to say "Happy Holidays".


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2008,07:14

Got it.

< http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
$40,000 tuition and salary
Added by: Salvador, on 2007-10-31 09:33:52

In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDIT: Amazing how many lies and half truths Sal can pack into a few paragraphs, must take years of practice.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 06 2008,07:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2008,07:34

Nice find sparc. Why, there seems to be a disconnect between Sal's two accounts of what went down.

FTK, perhaps you could ask Sal to explain?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 06 2008,07:36

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,07:31)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It appears that the story is evolving, and, contrary to what ID predicts, new information is being added at each generation.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 06 2008,08:46

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,08:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 06 2008,09:18

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 06 2008,08:46)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,08:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh, but is the addition of information due to purposeless random culled accidents, or is it by design?*



*we need a sparkle-y font for D-E-S-I-G-N like PZ does comic for the creobots.
Posted by: someotherguy on Jan. 06 2008,09:56

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 06 2008,08:46)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,08:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know that, given his epic inability to tell the truth in the past, there is no reason that I should be surprised by this latest fib, but it's really amazing just how much he does lie, and how poor a job he does of it, too!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 06 2008,11:37

Sal Genesis 1.

Sal Genesis 2.

What's the big deal?  He's working from a model.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 06 2008,15:14

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 06 2008,09:18)
Ahhhh, but is the addition of information due to purposeless random culled accidents, or is it by design?*



*we need a sparkle-y font for D-E-S-I-G-N like PZ does comic for the creobots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try < this thing >, maybe?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 06 2008,16:00

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 06 2008,15:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 06 2008,09:18)
Ahhhh, but is the addition of information due to purposeless random culled accidents, or is it by design?*



*we need a sparkle-y font for D-E-S-I-G-N like PZ does comic for the creobots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try < this thing >, maybe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried "All Science So Far" with that link, but no luck.

< This > one works, though.

Look for Arden to start posting glittery lolcats in 3... 2...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2008,17:48

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,07:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
At < UD > his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)

At < the EXPELLED pages > he tells a different story    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis added)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now a third version


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, I shouldn’t have to worry about studying engineering or physics because I reject Darwinism, but the forces enforcing political correctness cost me and other grad students an opportunity at Baylor when they shut down distinguished professor Robert Mark’s evolutionary informatics lab. All told, the Darwinists cost me (and if not me, another grad student) $40,000 in tuition and stipends. This sort of political correctness is bad for business, especially when we should be seeking ways to get engineering and applied physics students through our educational system, not trying to get rid of them because they are skeptical of the status quo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/174 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,17:57

Arden supports the status quo:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I8JmJ_P8l8 >
Posted by: Chayanov on Jan. 06 2008,18:03

Maybe it was Marks who told Sal that the "lab" was being shut down just to get rid of him, and Sal doesn't actually know that Marks merely switched servers.
Posted by: Nerull on Jan. 06 2008,19:43

I read through Young Cosmos to read his "apology", and I noticed this gem:



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


   What we’d allow to run rampant is tolerance.

Herr PZ Myers,
just before he sent FtK to the dungeon for expressing her dissent

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



Hey FTK, why don't you allow others to comment on Young Kosmos?

If banning one person who went after his daughter makes him Hitler (Herr), what does that make you two?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 06 2008,23:45

Some of Sal's logical inconsistencies:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, let me tell you Jeff Shallit, I’m an ID proponent and I’m not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo because my tuxedo costs lots of money.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... creationists are wearing expensive tuxedos (creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 06 2008,23:46

Sal:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I thought after all ID was about saving your ass at the end of times and not about materialism.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:47

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,23:45)
Some of Sal's logical inconsistencies:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, let me tell you Jeff Shallit, I’m an ID proponent and I’m not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo because my tuxedo costs lots of money.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... creationists are wearing expensive tuxedos (creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Argument ad paycheckum!

I think DaveTard tried this one first.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 07 2008,00:35

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 06 2008,23:00)
 
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 06 2008,15:14)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 06 2008,09:18)
Ahhhh, but is the addition of information due to purposeless random culled accidents, or is it by design?*



*we need a sparkle-y font for D-E-S-I-G-N like PZ does comic for the creobots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try < this thing >, maybe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried "All Science So Far" with that link, but no luck.

< This > one works, though.

Look for Arden to start posting glittery lolcats in 3... 2...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me like!
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 07 2008,10:05

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2008,20:00)
Erasmus,

Sal's not a Ph. D. candidate.  He is taking evening classes towards a master's degree in physics:
< My retreat from the public view…. >

No word yet on future plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, didn't you know? < Sal's a librarian >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The unititiated however, upon looking at this method of information storage would be inclined to criticize the designers as incompetent. I heard biologists say exactly that, “a competent designer would not have made DNA copy mechanisms which require error correction, he would have made a copy process which got it right on the first pass.” I shook my head in disgust, and I then proceed to set them straight on principles of information science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, < set me straight >, baby.

If anyone has, I'm the one who brought intelligent design to grad school (because the well educated, diverse students at my Catholic institution can't believe such crap is still being foisted upon our public schools).

I brought up the Google delisting of UD in a discussion of copyright. (People got a good laugh at DaveScot’s “I’m going to put a copyright symbol on each page!”)

I brought up Jonathan Wells’ Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design in a final project about the collocation of print with online sources (i.e., Panda’s Thumb response to the book). People got a good laugh at Wells’ claims. My professor, who is a devout Christian, was giggling up her sleeve.

I brought up Wells’ endorsement of Peter Duesberg’s HIV-denialism, the case of Christine Maggiore, and the lawsuit against the website Understanding Evolution for “violation of the Establishment Clause.”

People stopped laughing.

Academics who aren’t specifically studying evolution don’t know that this is going on, or that academic standards themselves are being undermined by a “shadow” academy of pseudoscience.

Oh, and Sal—this one’s for you.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Abstract. Recently we proposed a model in which when a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random papers, cites them, and also copies a fraction of their references. The model was stimulated by our finding that a majority of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. It accounted quantitatively for several properties of empirically observed distribution of citations; however, important features such as power-law distributions of citations to papers published during the same year and the fact that the average rate of citing decreases with aging of a paper were not accounted for by that model. Here, we propose a modified model: When a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random recent papers, cites them, and also copies some of their references. The difference with the original model is the word recent. We solve the model using methods of the theory of branching processes, and find that it can explain the aforementioned features of citation distribution, which our original model could not account for. The model also can explain  sleeping beauties in science;  that is, papers that are little cited for a decade or so and later  awaken  and get many citations. Although much can be understood from purely random models, we find that to obtain a good quantitative agreement with empirical citation data, one must introduce Darwinian fitness parameter for the papers [emphasis in original].

Mikhail V. Simkin, Vwani P. Roychowdhury. A mathematical theory of citing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 58, Issue 11, Pages 1661-1673.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Sal – Darwinism is the beast with ten heads. Citation as a virus! :D (Actually this idea had occurred to me.)

I wonder what a study of creationist citing quotmining would look like.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 07 2008,11:47

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 07 2008,10:05)
< Sal's a librarian >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The unititiated however, upon looking at this method of information storage would be inclined to criticize the designers as incompetent. I heard biologists say exactly that, “a competent designer would not have made DNA copy mechanisms which require error correction, he would have made a copy process which got it right on the first pass.” I shook my head in disgust, and I then proceed to set them straight on principles of information science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


So a error free copy process is impossible for any designer?  Is there a manuscript so heavy that God can't copy it?
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 07 2008,11:54

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 07 2008,10:47)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 07 2008,10:05)
< Sal's a librarian >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The unititiated however, upon looking at this method of information storage would be inclined to criticize the designers as incompetent. I heard biologists say exactly that, “a competent designer would not have made DNA copy mechanisms which require error correction, he would have made a copy process which got it right on the first pass.” I shook my head in disgust, and I then proceed to set them straight on principles of information science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


So a error free copy process is impossible for any designer?  Is there a manuscript so heavy that God can't copy it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe all God wants is someone to carry his books home.

Adam couldn't stand being alone, so why should he? ;)

[insert Mary Shelley allusion here]
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 18 2008,00:12

wonder what's going on at the thrilling website Young Cosmos. Wonder what's the top post?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God bless the creationist NASCAR hero and head coach of the Redksins!
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Jan 5, 2008

I mentioned here that the Seattle Seahawks and Washington Redskins are playing in todays wildcard playoff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Real threat to mainstream science, these geniuses.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 18 2008,00:15

Maybe more is going on at the Young Cosmos discussion forum:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 18 2008,00:20

A great thing about these losers, as Kristine mentions on another thread, and others have mentioned before, is that they have decades of failure ahead, which we'll get to laugh at.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 18 2008,01:02

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 07 2008,00:46)
Sal:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I thought after all ID was about saving your ass at the end of times and not about materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Salvador has never heard of Mammon. That wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 18 2008,08:49

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 18 2008,00:02)
 
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 07 2008,00:46)
Sal:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I thought after all ID was about saving your ass at the end of times and not about materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Salvador has never heard of Mammon. That wouldn't surprise me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal: "Did somebody say Manna?" :p

"Decades of failure ahead" made me laugh. That's a good sound bite, too.
Posted by: Bing on Jan. 18 2008,10:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 06 2008,23:47)
Argument ad paycheckum!

I think DaveTard tried this one first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he makes perfect sense in Tardworld.

  • 1. Bill Gates is a computer geek
  • 2. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world
  • 3. Therefore Bill Gates is always right
  • 4. Bill Gates gives money to the Dishonesty Institute through his foundation
  • 5.The Dishonesty Insitute is correct, given #3
  • 6. Shut up losers, I'm a Dell millionaire.

Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 18 2008,11:05

Quote (Bing @ Jan. 18 2008,10:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 06 2008,23:47)
Argument ad paycheckum!

I think DaveTard tried this one first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he makes perfect sense in Tardworld.

  • 1. Bill Gates is a computer geek
  • 2. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world
  • 3. Therefore Bill Gates is always right
  • 4. Bill Gates gives money to the Dishonesty Institute through his foundation
  • 5.The Dishonesty Insitute is correct, given #3
  • 6. Shut up losers, I'm a Dell millionaire.

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


Ahem - Great Post, BUT

YOU HAS TO REMEMBER, WHEN SPEAKING FOR AUTODIDACT POLYMORPHS FROM TEXAS THAT ARE WAY SMARTTER THAN YOU OR ANYONE THAT YOU KNOW TO DO ALL CAPS

AND END IT WITH:

YOU HOMO

ps:  But you're just a newbie so it's ok.  BUT ONLY THIS TIME HOMO
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 18 2008,11:15

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 18 2008,01:12)
wonder what's going on at the thrilling website Young Cosmos. Wonder what's the top post?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God bless the creationist NASCAR hero and head coach of the Redksins!
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Jan 5, 2008

I mentioned here that the Seattle Seahawks and Washington Redskins are playing in todays wildcard playoff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Real threat to mainstream science, these geniuses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Redskins lost the game (I assume because the Seahawks prayed harder), and Gibbs resigned 4 days later.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 18 2008,11:31

Quote (Bing @ Jan. 18 2008,10:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 06 2008,23:47)
Argument ad paycheckum!

I think DaveTard tried this one first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he makes perfect sense in Tardworld.

  • 1. Bill Gates is a computer geek
  • 2. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world
  • 3. Therefore Bill Gates is always right
  • 4. Bill Gates gives money to the Dishonesty Institute through his foundation
  • 5.The Dishonesty Insitute is correct, given #3
  • 6. Shut up losers, I'm a Dell millionaire.

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


Bill Gates is an atheist.

uh-ohh....
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 18 2008,12:18

Rich points out:

Bill Gates is an atheist.

uh-ohh....


ONLY CUZ HE'S NOT IN A FOXHOLE

HOMO
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 25 2008,01:57

Sal's posting again! He linked a fellow who argues for a variable speed of light without justification or argument, for one. He's also making the same claims, but he's using arguments. Arguments which are fallacious, and include hopeful musings to the effect that he'll have some real evidence behind him any day now. Like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There may be some empirical support to this already, but we need better instrumentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



However, in Chewbacca Defense Value (CDV), these are some fairly good arguments. He hasn't taken to ranting about wookies yet, but he's definitely lining up nonsequitor after nonsequitor about things that "do not make sense" as evidence that his position deserves to be considered.

His non-sciency posts are funny, too, but in a different way.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 25 2008,06:18

< Slith > also manages to lay down this sentence as he introduces a biography of Lon Solomon:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lon was a Jew and then a drug dealer before giving his life to Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I marvel at that. It does resemble Sal's own life story, however: he was a moron and then an asshole before...Oh, wait. Nothing happened.

The aforementioned biography refers to Solomon's children:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Jill (born 1992), an inspiring daughter with special needs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Sal, got a question for you:

Why does Darwin have a "deformed child," and Solomon a "an inspiring daughter with special needs"? Which characterization will you correct?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 25 2008,10:37

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2008,06:18)
Hey Sal, got a question for you:

Why does Darwin have a "deformed child," and Solomon a "an inspiring daughter with special needs"? Which characterization will you correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably because Solomon didn't beat puppies when he was a child.  Of course, he was a frat party-boy and a drug dealer, but that can't compare to beating puppies in Sal's value system.

Per usual, the documentation of this guy's persecution at the hands of the evil academic establishment is pretty vague. Sal writes  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While I was in church one day, Lon related how he was nearly expelled from Johns Hopkins because of his Christian beliefs, but survived to graduate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow, "nearly expelled" sounds almost as horrendous as "forced to move my website to another server."
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 25 2008,11:28

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 25 2008,10:37)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2008,06:18)
Hey Sal, got a question for you:

Why does Darwin have a "deformed child," and Solomon a "an inspiring daughter with special needs"? Which characterization will you correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably because Solomon didn't beat puppies when he was a child.  Of course, he was a frat party-boy and a drug dealer, but that can't compare to beating puppies in Sal's value system.

Per usual, the documentation of this guy's persecution at the hands of the evil academic establishment is pretty vague. Sal writes    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While I was in church one day, Lon related how he was nearly expelled from Johns Hopkins because of his Christian beliefs, but survived to graduate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow, "nearly expelled" sounds almost as horrendous as "forced to move my website to another server."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh NOOEES!  How did he manage to finish up with all that blood running into his eyes from the Crown O' Thorns™?

Chalk it all up to Another Friggin' Miracle by The Sky Guy.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2008,11:42

Hey, I was nearly destroyed by a dinosaur because of my beliefs!!!*

*Actualy, I was never threatened, but I once heard of someone that had been threatened.  That would seem to count, per Sal's reckoning.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 25 2008,22:25

A sentence of truth  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m the dumb kid in the family
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

the rest of Sal's post < "The home I was raised in" > is just repugnant.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 25 2008,23:46

I like how he keeps asking rhetorical questions to which the answer is "yes". For instance:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel like I want to puke when I hear Darwinists compare their theory to the creationist Newton’s theory of Universal Gravitation. How laughable and at the same time disgusting. We have numerous experiments in the past and in the present confirming the major postulates of the creationist Newton’s theory of gravitation. Can the world of Darwin offer anything comparable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. If you want to confirm the major principles of natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, all you have to do is play with microbes (or any other organism) in a lab for a few generations under selection pressure. Thousands of people have done it. It's easy.

I also like how he says he could run circles, using population genetics, around "Darwinists". See, there's no actual population genetics on his site. If he had found some kind of mathematical error in, say, Haldane's equations, wouldn't he be parading it? If he were that great at mathematics, wouldn't he be able to spot the obvious errors in the work of Dembski & Sanford?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 26 2008,04:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that’s what my spiritual life is for me. For example, for some strange reason I prayed for $40,000 in 2003, six weeks later the prayer was granted. In 2004, I asked that God would give my poll with the JMU free-thinker’s national attention. Two months later, the magazine Huxley founded to promote Darwinism, Nature, contacted me to publish my story and my poll. My story not only go national attention, but international attention in the April 28, 2005 edition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm. Later Sal goes onto say
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I see Darwinist promoters like Liz Craig saying I don’t understand science. Liz doesn’t even have any formal science edcation like me. Then I interact with Josh Rosenau and see he’s as math and logic challenged as Charles Darwin. What am I to think? I begin to think this is a community of bully’s that robbed me of a $40,000 opportunityat Baylor (under the tutelage of distinguished professor of Engineering, Robert Marks) and robbed scientists like Caroline Crocker of their ability to continue doing science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't ya just pray for the $40,000 Sal, like you did before?
So, we now have 4 versions of the InfoLab story
1:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From < UD >
2:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From < Expelled the Movie >
3:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, I shouldn’t have to worry about studying engineering or physics because I reject Darwinism, but the forces enforcing political correctness cost me and other grad students an opportunity at Baylor when they shut down distinguished professor Robert Mark’s evolutionary informatics lab. All told, the Darwinists cost me (and if not me, another grad student) $40,000 in tuition and stipends. This sort of political correctness is bad for business, especially when we should be seeking ways to get engineering and applied physics students through our educational system, not trying to get rid of them because they are skeptical of the status quo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/174 >
And now 4:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I begin to think this is a community of bully’s that robbed me of a $40,000 opportunityat Baylor (under the tutelage of distinguished professor of Engineering, Robert Marks) and robbed scientists like Caroline Crocker of their ability to continue doing science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/183#more-183 >
Which is it Sal?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 26 2008,07:40

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 26 2008,05:32)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that’s what my spiritual life is for me. For example, for some strange reason I prayed for $40,000 in 2003, six weeks later the prayer was granted. In 2004, I asked that God would give my poll with the JMU free-thinker’s national attention. Two months later, the magazine Huxley founded to promote Darwinism, Nature, contacted me to publish my story and my poll. My story not only go national attention, but international attention in the April 28, 2005 edition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm. Later Sal goes onto say
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I see Darwinist promoters like Liz Craig saying I don’t understand science. Liz doesn’t even have any formal science edcation like me. Then I interact with Josh Rosenau and see he’s as math and logic challenged as Charles Darwin. What am I to think? I begin to think this is a community of bully’s that robbed me of a $40,000 opportunityat Baylor (under the tutelage of distinguished professor of Engineering, Robert Marks) and robbed scientists like Caroline Crocker of their ability to continue doing science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


God gave Sal $40,000, and that was cool. Later, God gave someone else $40,000, but that was not cool. C'mon Sal, it's all one big wave function viewed from the end of time. Take your lumps with the rest of us.  

By the way: You played the 18th variation of the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, not the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganinni. And your flight instructor took you for a ride in a Cessna 172, not a Cesna 172. And that's not your house.

The famous 18th variation, played (I think) in the more difficult original d-flat, can be heard < here >.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2008,09:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 26 2008,05:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that’s what my spiritual life is for me. For example, for some strange reason I prayed for $40,000 in 2003, six weeks later the prayer was granted. In 2004, I asked that God would give my poll with the JMU free-thinker’s national attention. Two months later, the magazine Huxley founded to promote Darwinism, Nature, contacted me to publish my story and my poll. My story not only go national attention, but international attention in the April 28, 2005 edition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm. Later Sal goes onto say
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I see Darwinist promoters like Liz Craig saying I don’t understand science. Liz doesn’t even have any formal science edcation like me. Then I interact with Josh Rosenau and see he’s as math and logic challenged as Charles Darwin. What am I to think? I begin to think this is a community of bully’s that robbed me of a $40,000 opportunityat Baylor (under the tutelage of distinguished professor of Engineering, Robert Marks) and robbed scientists like Caroline Crocker of their ability to continue doing science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Hey, Sal, while you're badmouthing other people's educations, could you take 5 minutes and learn how to correctly use apostrophes?

Thanks a million.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 26 2008,09:50

Nothing says "check the original" like Sal's use of ellipses:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, Ed, before you accuse me making an illogical argument about Darwinism and bestiality, consider the writings of one of your own Darwinist prophets, Peter Singer. I hope you enjoy the essay, HEAVY PETTING, where Singer makes exactly the argument that Darwinism implies bestiality:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog?
…..
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as “the Jane Goodall of orangutans” and the world’s foremost authority on these great apes.
….
Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


From < the original >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howzabout those nuns, Sal? And you'll notice that the majority of these depictions predate Darwin. Later:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Sal has deleted the minor detail that, in this instance, it was the orangutan that was interested in and aroused by the human being, not the reverse. And, not surprisingly, a perusal of Singer's article discloses 1) Singer doesn't condone interspecies intercourse ("This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural"), and 2) Sal, by means of his usual ham-handed distortions, has attempted to depict a passage that states one thing as stating another.

< Ed Brayton > suggests alternative theories of Sal Cordova:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's really only two choices here. Either Sal really believes this, in which case he is a first class, grade-A fucking moron, or he doesn't believe it and he's just using it to smear people he disagrees with. Take your pick. Either way, it's repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal prefers that we regard him as a grade-A fucking moron. But the above is more consistent with manipulation in an attempt to smear people with whom he disagrees (wouldn't want to end a sentence with a preposition). I say we needn't choose: both are the case.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2008,10:26

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 26 2008,10:50)
Nothing says "check the original" like Sal's use of ellipses:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, Ed, before you accuse me making an illogical argument about Darwinism and bestiality, consider the writings of one of your own Darwinist prophets, Peter Singer. I hope you enjoy the essay, HEAVY PETTING, where Singer makes exactly the argument that Darwinism implies bestiality:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog?
…..
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as “the Jane Goodall of orangutans” and the world’s foremost authority on these great apes.
….
Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


From < the original >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howzabout those nuns, Sal? And you'll notice that the majority of these depictions predate Darwin. Later:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Sal has deleted the minor detail that, in this instance, it was the orangutan that was interested in and aroused by the human being, not the reverse. And, not surprisingly, a perusal of Singer's article discloses 1) Singer doesn't condone interspecies intercourse ("This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural"), and 2) Sal, by means of his usual ham-handed distortions, has attempted to depict a passage that states one thing as stating another.

< Ed Brayton > suggests alternative theories of Sal Cordova:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's really only two choices here. Either Sal really believes this, in which case he is a first class, grade-A fucking moron, or he doesn't believe it and he's just using it to smear people he disagrees with. Take your pick. Either way, it's repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal prefers that we regard him as a grade-A fucking moron. But the above is more consistent with manipulation in an attempt to smear people with whom he disagrees (wouldn't want to end a sentence with a preposition). I say we needn't choose: both are the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the essential thing you wonder about any particular creationist. Are they stupid enough to believe these things they say, or are they just trying to take advantage of other creationists, buy accumulating honoraria and book sales and such.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 26 2008,11:24

I suggest a sort of middle ground, in that Sal wishes he were slightly more of a grade-A fucking moron and is trying to assert his moronicism as strongly as possible. When reality seems to be attacking your faith, idiocy is piety.

Bonus questions: Who is Peter Singer, and why are we supposed to care? So far as I know, he's totally irrelevant to everything. Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason? Why do so many creationists have so many degrees?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 27 2008,00:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.
Posted by: bystander on Jan. 27 2008,00:47

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2008,17:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, the ID version of peer review
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 27 2008,01:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bonus questions: Who is Peter Singer, and why are we supposed to care?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a philosopher who's interested in animal rights (< amongst other things >).  According to Sal, he advocated sexual relationships between humans and animals.  Wikipedia has a < slightly different version >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far as I know, he's totally irrelevant to everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, who do you mean here, Singer or Sal?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason? Why do so many creationists have so many degrees?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've no IDEA.

Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 27 2008,02:34

I just wandered over to see what Sal was doing, and noticed the recent comments:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#
Recent Comments

   * John A. Davison on My view of the End Times
   * John A. Davison on Nomogenesis by Leo Berg
   * John A. Davison on Rachmaninoff plays Chopin Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2
   * scordova on Nomogenesis by Leo Berg
   * John A. Davison on Rachmaninoff plays Chopin Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2
   * John A. Davison on Nomogenesis by Leo Berg
   * John A. Davison on I have a new boss! Dr. Caroline Crocker!
   * John A. Davison on I have a new boss! Dr. Caroline Crocker!
   * John A. Davison on Homosexuality may be partially inherited, YECs shoot themselves in the foot again
   * scordova on The home I was raised in....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll get the popcorn.

I love it so!

Bob
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 27 2008,06:06

< Explaining his absence >, Sal discusses his vacation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I spent part of my vacation at Biloxi. Here are some pictures of one of the place where I hung out. Biloxi is so much nicer than nearby New Orelans from what I hear. The people in Biloxi impress me as being God fearing…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is curious about this is that all three places in Biloxi that he claims to have hung out at are Hotels and Casinos.  God fearing indeed.......
Posted by: pwe on Jan. 27 2008,07:16

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 27 2008,02:34)
I just wandered over to see what Sal was doing, and noticed the recent comments:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#
Recent Comments

   * John A. Davison on My view of the End Times
   ....

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


I'll get the popcorn.

I love it so!

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Bob for the tip  :)

In the thread < My view of the End Times >, JAD responds:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evil already reigns in the persons of P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, all of whom have abandoned any pretense of rationality to dedicate all of their energies to the cause of Universal Atheism. We now have our very first proclaimed atheist congressman, an atheist political action committee, and atheist inspired day camps for the purpose of converting our youth to godless atheism. It is eerily reminiscent of Hitlerjugend and potentially just as dangerous. Go to Pharyngula and click on the scarlet A to discover Richard Dawkins at his atheist best. My God, they are now peddling coffee mugs, bumper stickers and Tshirts to an adoring crowd of atheist zealots and doing so from the blog of a tenured member of the faculty of the University of Minnesota, my doctoral alma mater. I complained to the Provost but received no reply.

This sort of thing wiuld have been unthinkable twenty years ago. Western Civilization is in a state of profound decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, the horror, the horror -- where can we run and hide from those scarlet As?


- pwe
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 27 2008,14:42

< Sal the Consistent > believes Christianity has yielded some mean, nasty, deluded Darwinists, like Dawkins, Meyers, Brayton, and Avalos.

Wouldn't want to be mean and nasty.

Also, he believes that the Christian Michael Dowd, who has traveled the country arguing that Christianity can be reconciled with Darwinism, should castrate himself.

That there is some weird shit, Sal.
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 27 2008,14:50

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 26 2008,11:24)
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason? Why do so many creationists have so many degrees?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Several answers:
They have so much spare time on their nice subsidised salary etc, that they like to learn.
The degrees help overawe the gullible.
They think that the more you sit there the more you learn.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 27 2008,15:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 27 2008,14:42)
< Sal the Consistent > believes Christianity has yielded some mean, nasty, deluded Darwinists, like Dawkins, Meyers, Brayton, and Avalos.

Wouldn't want to be mean and nasty.

Also, he believes that the Christian Michael Dowd, who has traveled the country arguing that Christianity can be reconciled with Darwinism, should castrate himself.

That there is some weird shit, Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal also gets Kimura, genetic drift, and by extension all of population genetics, completely back-asswards wrong. I'm not sure if I should be surprised that Sal clearly doesn't understand basic population genetics, but for some reason I am.

Really, what is he trying to pull with this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the record, I’m a pragmatist. To quote my favorite Darwinist (former evangelical) Michael Shermer, “What it is, is what it is.” I’m willing to revise my beliefs if I’m wrong. Being an engineer and going through school in the sciences, one gets confronted with one’s fallibility every day — heck, every hour!

But certain things we realize cannot possibly be true, and then we move on. I realize Darwinism cannot possibly be true in it’s most major claims. The Darwinists can’t make their math work. Kimura showed Darwinism is not the driving force in molecular evolution, and it’s apparent if molecular evolution is not governed by Darwinism, we should not expect much else in biology to be. Like Berlinski, one does not need to be a creationist to know Darwinism is drek.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The math works so far as I can tell, right about as well as Sal's beloved Maxwell equations. If the math doesn't work, why does it so routinely make correct predictions in, to begin, rudimentary genomics and laboratoy adaptation? Sal's position relies upon completely ignoring these very obvious things, and they demonstrate quite clearly that he's utterly wrong. Kimura, for instance, doesn't think his work contradicts natural selection at all. Neither does Dawkins, if we really want to get into it. Sal seems to have decided that natural selection doesn't do anything by fiat without argumentation, which is dishonest and a misrepresentation of the neutral theory.

I'll await eagerly Sal's retraction of, at least, his mischaracterization of Kimura's work. He is, after all, an upstanding kind of guy who admits he's wrong when he's wrong, right?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 27 2008,15:45

On this < thread >, Sal shows his true colors. Writing about Berg's Nomogenesis, Sal notes that Berg's book had a "foreword by Nobel Laureate Theodosius Dobzhansky". In the comments, fellow whacko JAD actually has the smarts to question this assertion, "Are you sure Dobzhansky was a Nobel Laureate?". Sal corrects himself, in typical Sal fashion (when you are caught in a mistake, tell another whopper).      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By golly, I was wrong! He was not a Nobel Laureate. He did receive a nomination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But according to the < official Nobel website >, nobody knows who the nominees are until many years later.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nomination to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Pysiology or Medicine. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More damningly, a search of the database for nominations (available from a link on that page), using the search term "Dobzhansky", yields this    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are no matches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So one can conclude a number of things from this exchange.

1) JAD, despite his advancing age and obvious insanity, has more on the ball than Sal.

2) Sal can't be bothered to check easily-ascertainable facts before posting.

3) When cornered, Sal reverts quickly to the standard creationist ploy, pulling another argument out of his ass.

There could be other conclusions as well; feel free to add your own..
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2008,17:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
for the purpose of converting our youth to godless atheism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is there some other kind?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 27 2008,18:44

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2008,17:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
for the purpose of converting our youth to godless atheism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is there some other kind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. To the creationists, Theistic Evolution = Theistic Atheism.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 27 2008,20:30

When a hapless victim of Naegleria fowleri swims in warm water, the amoeba enters the nose, worms its way into the brain, and causes an astonishing amount of damage. This has apparently happened to Salvador Cordova.

Sal < quotes > "Darwinist" Gary Yourofsky:
       

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever

Darwinist Gary Yourofsky
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is DarLogic at its finest. Consider that lions subject their prey to cruel death. Same with wolves and their prey, etc. Is Gary out there punishing lions and wolves for being carnivores? No. Instead, this Darwinist is relishing the idea that women be raped and tortured simply because they wear an animal fur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yourofsky appears to be a whackjob who has been committing crimes on behalf of "animal rights" for years. But does he ground his views in "Darwinism?" Yourofsky has a website, with a < FAQ >, one of which addresses "Evolution and Creation":
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating. We were vegan scavengers and gatherers long before we tried hunting and gathering. When the Ice Age hit and most vegetation was wiped out, humans turned to a survival scenario of eating meat. When the Ice Age ended, we should have reverted back to the vegan diet that kept us connected to and part of the natural world, not fallaciously on top of it.

In the creation theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to a sinful diet of dead animals. The religions of Buddhists, Hindus, 7th Day Adventists, Jains and Rastafarians unambiguously admonish followers to harm no animal, and to treat the body as a temple by ingesting healthy, non-animal based foods. Meat is never permissible.

If you are a follower of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, look no further than the Garden of Eden. It was a vegan haven, and Adam and Eve were the first vegetarians on this planet. Genesis 1:29, God's first dietary law, states, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Isaiah 11:7, God's last dietary law, states, "The wolf will live with the lamb, the cow will feed with the bear, the lion will eat straw like the ox, and a little child will lead them. And neither will harm nor destroy on My Holy Mountain." The beginning and the end are vegan because veganism causes no bloodshed and cruelty. Many other scriptures like Hosea 2:18 and Ecclesiastes 3:19 also profess God's love for animals.

Since animal products cause almost all of our diseases, and the human body is 100 percent herbivorous, rationalizing God's approval of this deadly fare doesn't make sense. It's awfully convenient that most people believe God, Jesus and Mohammad embrace the misery, murder and consumption of animals. Yet, those same people also believe God, Jesus and Mohammad are all-compassionate, all-loving and all-merciful, not bloodthirsty, murderous devils. These scenarios contradict each other, so it can't be both ways. Causing misery to animals and supporting their murder is causing misery to God, Jesus and Mohammad and murdering Their souls.

The THOU SHALT NOT KILL commandment should make everyone vegan anyway. Since each vegan spares the lives thousands of animals every year, honoring this commandment can only bring one closer to God....

Of the 114 chapters in the Qu'ran, 113 begin with the phrase "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful." All Muslims accept that showing compassion and charity is a service to Allah. Yet, to kill animals and eat their flesh is anything but compassionate and charitable. The Holy Prophet Muhammad states, "Allah will not be affectionate to a man who is not affectionate to Allah's creatures. Whoever is kind to the creatures of Allah is kind to himself. A good deed done to an animal is as good as doing good to a human being while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as an act of cruelty to a human being."

Animals are the most innocent beings on this planet and need the most protection. When we exclude animals from God's circle of compassion, we exclude God from our lives. God demands mercy, compassion and meekness. After all, the meek shall inherit the earth, and the meek are the animals and those who walk humbly with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, Yourofsky's ideology is omnivorous, as he has recruited his own versions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Rastafarian belief (oddly, he fails to mention his natural allies, the Pastafarians), as well as a cartoon version of "the evolutionary theory" to his cause. Most of his rationale is grounded in religious views, the majority of those selective readings of Abrahamic religions.

Sal's characterization of Yourofsky's statement vis rape as that of a "Darwinist," once again, reflects inaccuracy that actually attains a sort of reverse (or is it perverse?) precision. He got it almost exactly wrong.

Sal as much as admitted that what he is saying makes no sense:  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His cries for justice do not even accord with his Darwinist beliefs where survival of the fittest is the only real law. Such is Darwinist twisted logic and ethics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, there is no evidence that Yourofsky grounds his notions in an understanding of evolutionary theory - most of his rationales are religious in nature - and indeed even Sal recognizes that a call for radical veganism isn't consistent with our omnivorous evolutionary heritage. So Darwinism isn't even implicit in Yourofsky's views. Nor are Yourofsky's in Darwinism.

But none of this stops Sal from claiming that a "Darwinist" has advocated the rape of women who wear furs. Then he rationalizes his flatass disconnect by asserting that Darwinian logic is flawed. Astonishing, really.

Savadore: Your logic is no less twisted than Yourofsky's. What does that say about you?
Posted by: bystander on Jan. 28 2008,00:55

Sal is going off the rails even for Sal. I wonder if it is because he is finding his studies a little tougher than expected. Uni is different in the US compared to Australia, but I assume that until now he would have survived by just using the tools he was told to use. But going from

"Use a Fourier Transform to solve this equation" in lower grades

to

"Why would you use Fourier to solve this problem?" in higher grades would be a problem to somebody like Sal who has no idea about the underlying philosophy of Fourier transforms.

I have found some of the same kinds of problems with his comments on genetic computer programs.
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 28 2008,03:07

Sal < follows up > his previous post proving God's existence and greatness. He, ah, makes all the same arguments all over again.

Badly-argued theodicy built on top of bad physics does not impress me. Repeating it does not make it better.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2008,08:03

So few people go to Young Cosmos - mostly us - that nobody's probably told Salvador his discussion board has been down for days.

< http://youngcosmos.com/discuss/ >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2008,09:24

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,09:03)
So few people go to Young Cosmos - mostly us - that nobody's probably told Salvador his discussion board has been down for days.

< http://youngcosmos.com/discuss/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has a discussion board?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 28 2008,09:30

it is a shame that Sal has effectively eliminated all commenters except Ftk and JAD, but you have to admit, that trio can top the charts most days. In the latest post and comment thread, Sal and JAD blather at each other (politely), and Sal refuses to bite at JAD's blasphemous bait. Quoting Einstein, JAD notes  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given Sal's oft-recounted history, that had to sting.

But Sal blows it off by trying to get JAD back onto Sal's favorite topic, equations that prove the existence of God. Top tard quote here  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an mental illustration, imagine God as if He were acting like a magnet, drawing all events toward His ultimate purpose. That is how Tipler and Barrow describe the Ultimate Observer, the Omega Point, the Intelligent Designer, God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When Sal gets his martyr position at the Dishonesty Institute, he may regret that last word...
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2008,09:39

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2008,10:24)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,09:03)
So few people go to Young Cosmos - mostly us - that nobody's probably told Salvador his discussion board has been down for days.

< http://youngcosmos.com/discuss/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has a discussion board?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, but basically nobody visits it. You know how ours has that stuff like



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
48 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes

36 guests, 10 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>stevestory >Lou FCD >Albatrossity2 >mitschlag >PTET >Zachriel >Tracy P. Hamilton >dhogaza >Mr_Christopher >olegt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



theirs always reads like



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes

1 guests, 0 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]

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



I was going over there to laugh at their pathetic stats, but I couldn't even do that, because the site is broken.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 28 2008,09:58

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,08:03)
So few people go to Young Cosmos - mostly us - that nobody's probably told Salvador his discussion board has been down for days.

< http://youngcosmos.com/discuss/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DaveTard should get right on that.  Unless he's too busy trying to save his very good friend Michael Dell from this:

< Dell needs you, DaveTard! >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HP Keeps Crushing Dell in Worldwide PC Market Share
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 28 2008,21:28



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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Methinks that claim should be reviewd by an expert in nutrition. Unless I've misunderstood what I've read on that subject, without meat humans need either a carefully planned diet (that most likely involves some non-local food items), or else manufactured supplements to fill in for what they don't get in the diet (and for kids the planning and/or supplements would be even more critical than for adults). I don't see either of those as being possible prior to modern technology.

Henry
Posted by: Coyote on Jan. 28 2008,21:47

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2008,07:28)


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Methinks that claim should be reviewd by an expert in nutrition. Unless I've misunderstood what I've read on that subject, without meat humans need either a carefully planned diet (that most likely involves some non-local food items), or else manufactured supplements to fill in for what they don't get in the diet (and for kids the planning and/or supplements would be even more critical than for adults). I don't see either of those as being possible prior to modern technology.

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


Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 28 2008,22:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I've heard, depending on which primates you mean. Chimpanzees certainly do that; they even make tools (out of branches) to collect insects and/or grubs from their hiding places.

Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 28 2008,23:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As a primate I'll vouch for this statement.

You've really missed something if you haven't had my insect, grub, larvae and other small critters omelette.  Heavenly, it is.

I think the evolutionary order was fire, omelette, salsa, religion.

Then came the tortilla and proof of religion.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 29 2008,06:46

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,23:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Lemurs will catch and eat birds. We've seen it in catta and fulvus. Cool, actually. Can't say for sure I've seen many lemurs eat insects, but tarsiers certainly do, as do Galago, Loris and other prosimians.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 29 2008,06:47

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 29 2008,00:08)
Then came the tortilla and proof of religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which < you can visit for yourself > in Lake Arthur, New Mexico.

Sadly,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The image, once recognizable even in photographs, has faded to a half dozen brown spots and a wiggly burnt blotch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 29 2008,06:48

Oh, and Aye-aye, which fill the woodpecker niche in Madagascar. Definitely a must-see, if you ever get the opportunity. Eats grubs.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 29 2008,06:49

Quote (bystander @ Jan. 27 2008,00:47)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2008,17:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, the ID version of peer review
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's FUNNY!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2008,07:21

Quote (Coyote @ Jan. 28 2008,22:47)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2008,07:28)
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Methinks that claim should be reviewd by an expert in nutrition. Unless I've misunderstood what I've read on that subject, without meat humans need either a carefully planned diet (that most likely involves some non-local food items), or else manufactured supplements to fill in for what they don't get in the diet (and for kids the planning and/or supplements would be even more critical than for adults). I don't see either of those as being possible prior to modern technology.

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


Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The chimpanzees of the Taï Forest in Côte d’Ivoire hunt red colobus monkeys in coordinated groups, playing roles such “driver,” “blocker,” “chaser,” and “ambusher” that can require 20 or more years of experience to master. Meat is distributed to all participants in the hunt, with shares reflecting the importance and difficulty of each role.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 29 2008,08:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 29 2008,07:21)
... in coordinated groups, playing roles such “driver,” “blocker,” “chaser,” and “ambusher” that can require 20 or more years of experience to master. Meat is distributed to all participants in the hunt, with shares reflecting the importance and difficulty of each role.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that another post has the Ruggers Thread...
Posted by: pwe on Jan. 29 2008,09:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 27 2008,15:45)
On this < thread >, Sal shows his true colors. Writing about Berg's Nomogenesis, Sal notes that Berg's book had a "foreword by Nobel Laureate Theodosius Dobzhansky". In the comments, fellow whacko JAD actually has the smarts to question this assertion, "Are you sure Dobzhansky was a Nobel Laureate?". Sal corrects himself, in typical Sal fashion (when you are caught in a mistake, tell another whopper).        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By golly, I was wrong! He was not a Nobel Laureate. He did receive a nomination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But according to the < official Nobel website >, nobody knows who the nominees are until many years later.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nomination to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Pysiology or Medicine. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More damningly, a search of the database for nominations (available from a link on that page), using the search term "Dobzhansky", yields this      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are no matches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Add to that the beginning of Sal's post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wish to thank Professor Davison for introducing me to Nomogenesis by Leo Berg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Professor Davison, anyone we know?


- pwe
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2008,09:21

Funny I had always supposed religion came after the first ergot, amanita, lophophora or frog poisoning.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 29 2008,09:53

Since I can't go over and make fun of the stats at Young Cosmos's discussion board, because it's been broken for days, I have to go make fun of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design's discussion board:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brainstorms Recent Visitors: 0
There are no users in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



to give you some perspective, here's AtBC:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
43 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
30 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>stevestory >pwe >IanBrown_101 >Reciprocating Bill >Lou FCD >Occam's Aftershave >improvius >JAM >keedgeAllogip >blogforlove >EoRaptor013 >keiths
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 29 2008,17:22

Hey, Lou!!  Sal is < psychoanalyzing you!! >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 29 2008,17:27

Sal's fascination with private parts and surgery < continues. >

As FtK says in the comments there    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Totally something going on in the old noggin’ rather than the organ they’re wanting to do away with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But since I am currently reading The Spatula Brain, which argues that the brain is not the mind, I have to wonder if Sal (or FtK) believes that transexualism is a product of the brain, or a product of the mind. Could the belief that you are actually a different sex be coming from outside the person? Since Denyse and her co-author advance the belief that your mind is evidence of a higher power, or an immortal soul, how can we tell the difference between that and a belief that you should be a different sex?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 29 2008,18:00

Hey, the Young Cosmos discussion board is back up.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who is Online
Who is Online Our users have posted a total of 787 articles
We have 54 registered users
The newest registered user is Joe Smith

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Looks about right.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2008,18:07

Along with those amoeba, we're obviously getting to ol' Sal:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also did some research on the matter in light of the fact that the discussion forum tied to PandasThumb is moderated by Wesley Elsberry and a Darwinist Drag Queen, Imitation Lesbian by the name of Lou/JanieBelle [ see my link to Lou in This ID proponent is not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo.] Evolutionary Biologist John Roughgarden and the Darwinist DragQueen at Elsberry’s discussion forum strike me as remarkably similar to the mentally ill patients which McHugh describes...

The solution to the mental illness of the Darwinist DragQueens in Elsberry’s discussion forum is not surgery (as Evolutionary Biologist John Roughgarden resorted to), but fixing of the mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some very weird shit follows. I'd been scratching my head over Sal's obsession with sex change operations, when it struck me: This thing...



...which is displayed over at Ftk's blog, is NOT a mole rat. It's Sal's wang chung, which upon recognizing just who it was attached to grew legs and a tail and left him. That's gotta hurt, and he's bitter about it.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 29 2008,18:16

:O  :O  :O
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 29 2008,18:20

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2008,18:22)
Hey, Lou!!  Sal is < psychoanalyzing you!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he likes me, in a third grade kind of way.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 29 2008,18:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 29 2008,18:20)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2008,18:22)
Hey, Lou!!  Sal is < psychoanalyzing you!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he likes me, in a third grade kind of way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What odd can I get on Sal having repressed fundie gayness syndrome?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 29 2008,18:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2008,19:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 29 2008,18:20)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2008,18:22)
Hey, Lou!!  Sal is < psychoanalyzing you!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he likes me, in a third grade kind of way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What odd can I get on Sal having repressed fundie gayness syndrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not good odds for betting, Rich.  It's pretty obvious, the way he's been obsessing about my penis.

I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to take your bet.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2008,18:47

well RB you'd grow legs, buck teeth and run off too if you had been crammed in those glory-ous fetid backwaters of the GMU men's room.  Imagine the places you'd go.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 29 2008,18:48

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 29 2008,18:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2008,19:30)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 29 2008,18:20)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2008,18:22)
Hey, Lou!!  Sal is < psychoanalyzing you!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he likes me, in a third grade kind of way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What odd can I get on Sal having repressed fundie gayness syndrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not good odds for betting, Rich.  It's pretty obvious, the way he's been obsessing about my penis.

I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to take your bet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's to society's benefit that Sal remains a creationist - it's apparently the only thing holding him back from becoming a gay, horse-schtupping, music-hating, serial rapist in a cheap tuxedo.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 29 2008,20:17

Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 29 2008,18:48)
I think it's to society's benefit that Sal remains a creationist - it's apparently the only thing holding him back from becoming a