Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Bathroom Wall started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 31 2005,09:47

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any particular reason for the red-bating? Are you still concerned that the CPUSA might try to take over the country?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I am not concerned about that at all. Polls indicate only 9% of Americans believe in evolution and most of them are effete cowards who couldn't take over a wet paper bag. There is no chance of a communist takeover in this country. In America, communists are an endangered species that exist only in zoos like Harvard and Berkely. America's Christian taxpayers care for you like any good zookeeper; we just don't want you animals to determine what our children learn in our schools. Che Guevera, Lenin?--Chomsky, Gould, etc., much less their pathetic disciples who run this message board don't even come close.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And surely you're not going to claim that the Soviet Union was a haven for evolutionists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darwinism is the intellectual precursor to Marxism. Without it Marxism could not exist. It is an uncitical devotion to the works of Darwin that caused Lysenkoism to be adopted. Lysenkoism is just applied Darwinism. It was the Christian monk Gregor Mendel, not the atheistic philosopher Darwin who really discovered genetics, and this is what Lysenko objected to. Yes, evolutionists had free reign in the Soviet Union, while true scientists were sent to the Gulag.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2005,10:38

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Oct. 31 2005,15:47]

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


Darwinism is the intellectual precursor to Marxism. Without it Marxism could not exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Communist Manifesto: 1848.

On the Origin of Species: 1859.

Do we have a QED here?
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 31 2005,11:32

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 31 2005,15:47)
America's Christian taxpayers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget, Jesus was a Liberal Jew.  :D
Posted by: GCT on Nov. 01 2005,02:57

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Polls indicate only 9% of Americans believe in evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I want a source on that.
Posted by: IMind on Nov. 01 2005,03:32

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

I believe he's getting it from a Gallup poll from 1991. Cited on a site which apparently is trying to foster religious tolereance... it's also the very first link that comes up when you google "polls evolution"... pretty lazy.

< Relgious Tolerance - Evolution Polling page >

A more recent poll shows the number at 15% from CBS News...
< CBS Evolution Poll >

However... in both polls there is a large percentage of people that believe in evolution of some form... it's really pretty depressing how deluded most Americans are.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,05:06

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I want a source on that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Here is the link >I was in slight error. The 9% poll was for 1987. Darwininsts seem to have gained a little ground. As of 1997, 10% of Americans believe in evolutionism! It might even be as high as 11% by now! Wow, the revolution must coming soon!!

*snicker*
Posted by: GCT on Nov. 01 2005,05:10

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

By my reading of that poll, 9% accept in atheistic evolution, while 40% accept a theistic evolution stance.  That would seem to me to be 49% of the public accepting evolution.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,05:15

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Communist Manifesto: 1848.

On the Origin of Species: 1859.

Do we have a QED here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, "we" don't. The Communist Manifesto is just a bunch of left-wing ranting. It reads like a joint pamphlet of Noam Chomsky and Martha Nussbaum. It has no substance. Karl and Fred's great work, Das Kapital, contains the theoetical foundation for their ideas, grounded thoroughly in Darwinism. It was Darwinism that animated the corspe that was socialist ideology prior to the 1860's
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2005,05:20

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 01 2005,11:15)
Karl and Fred's great work, Das Kapital, contains the theoetical foundation for their ideas, grounded thoroughly in Darwinism. It was Darwinism that animated the corspe that was socialist ideology prior to the 1860's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try, Bill. Capitalism is based on Darwinism, not Communism. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Yep, that's clearly derived right from the "Survival of the Fittest."

Do you honestly think Lysenko was based on Darwinism? I'm pretty sure Darwin didn't believe in the heritability of acquired characteristics, which is central to Lysenkoism.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,07:05

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Communist Manifesto: 1848.

On the Origin of Species: 1859.

Do we have a QED here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One other thing. When Christians invoke Darwinism, we are discussing something broader than Charles D's scribblings. The roots of Darwinism are found in Milesian philosophy, and reached their apex in Malthus and, ironically enough, < Erasmus Darwin. > Chuck himself was rather dimwitted, and obviously let someone rifle Grandpa's manuscripts while watching Huxley take the pratfalls in public. I often wonder what Chuck thought when he stared, slack-jawed, at the pages of his own "work". You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for exploiting an obvious < imbecile > to advance your satan-breathed ideology. And Marx should be ashamed for trashing and then plagiarizing Malthus. But I guess the ends justify the means, no?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you honestly think Lysenko was based on Darwinism? I'm pretty sure Darwin didn't believe in the heritability of acquired characteristics, which is central to Lysenkoism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I've just stated, Darwin petit-fils had enough trouble dressing himself each morning to corcern himself with such, but his books do rely on < lamarckian > inheritance as a supplement to natural selection.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 01 2005,07:08

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Well, at least 67% think that it is possible to believe in both God and evolution, which is encouraging.

And don't forget we are talking about the USA here, which is unusual amongst the developed nations in that a very high percentage of the population claim that religion is very important in their lives.  Europe, for example, is much more secular.  The States is closer to a developing country in this specific regard.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,07:37

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And don't forget we are talking about the USA here, which is unusual amongst the developed nations in that a very high percentage of the population claim that religion is very important in their lives. Europe, for example, is much more secular. The States is closer to a developing country in this specific regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's funny about this is that Americans are also happier than Europeans in general - if anyone asks for the source, I'll dig it up under the condition that the skeptic subsequently concedes that high levels of religious belief and personal contentment might be causally linked.
Posted by: GCT on Nov. 01 2005,07:51

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Or it could be that high levels of wealth and personal contentment are causally linked?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,07:55

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or it could be that high levels of wealth and personal contentment are causally linked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that's pretty well been debunked. Even lottery winners decline to previous levels of happiness after a couple of years. But ignorance is bliss, or so I hear.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 01 2005,13:20

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Lottery winners are special cases, Paley, and you're right: large windfalls don't result in permanent happiness.  It's usually just temporary.  But, on the other hand, Americans overall have a high level of contentedness.  It is difficult to discover the source of that happiness.  Sure, you say that we're more religous, it must be due to that.  < This guy and his study > show that happiness is not the whole of the equation.
 
I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data.  I'm sure you have our own explanation as to why the more religious country (ours) has more murders, abortion, and STDs than the more secular countries in Europe.  I'm going to guess that you are going to dismiss it outright.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,04:04

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This guy and his study show that happiness is not the whole of the equation.

I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data. I'm sure you have our own explanation as to why the more religious country (ours) has more murders, abortion, and STDs than the more secular countries in Europe. I'm going to guess that you are going to dismiss it outright.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I dismiss data that I can't see? The blurb doesn't link to the study, so the reader is left in the dark (perhaps deliberately?) when it comes to the author's methodology, sample size, etc. Lines such as this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world"

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


don't exactly inspire confidence in the author's objectivity. Is the study online, and if not, would you mind giving a brief summary? Trust me, I won't run away.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 02 2005,05:09

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But ignorance is bliss, or so I hear.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 02 2005,07:34

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can I dismiss data that I can't see?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fair enough.

Here's data on murder rates by country:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap >

Notice how the US is in the top 25 in between great countries like Bulgaria and Armenia.  While most of civilized (and secular!) Europe have half or less of the murder rate.

I found this bit of data on abortions:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_abo_cap >

And finally rapes:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap >

Are you noticing a trend?

Aren't we the moral ones?  Maybe those other secular countries are just lying about their immorality.  They're the type, afterall.

Don't focus on the author's interpretation.  Focus on the data.  Let's have your interpretation.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,07:45

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To give you additional guidance, here are some questions I ask of any cross-national survey:
1) Did the study make demographic adjustments at any point? (Are white, middle-class Americans compared with white, middle-class Europeans? Or at least did they compare similar races? If not, the study is a joke.)
2) Were adjustments made for the varying percentages of 15-35 (or similar-aged) men in the respective populations? If not, the study is propaganda.
3) Are there any other considerations (population density, gun laws, etc.)? If not, the study is compromised.

Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work. I'm not whining, just stating a fact. But I'll respond to your study if you fill in some details.

I hope this helps.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 02 2005,08:17

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

The data I gave you did not take into account race, creed, or social status.  It is only giving you the numbers.  There are plenty of other stats on that site that you can look at to see those things.

The problem here became clear to me while reading your post.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think this is true at all.  In fact, most academics ARE white, heterosexual Christian men.  You might as well make another baseless claim like "Jesus ate babies!"  I think you are confusing race caused crime with socio-economic caused crime.  Are blacks more likely to commit crimes, or are poor people more likely to commit crimes?  What about middle class blacks, do they commit crimes?  What about poor whites?  Do you have any numbers to suggest that race is the bigger factor than the size of their paycheck?

Crime, abortion, and other social ills are a product of the society, and we are all apart of that society, even the white, heterosexual, Christian men.  Our < nation's religion > doesn't seem to be doing much to thwart the tide of those social ills.  It's an empty statement to say that religion helps our nation in any way.  Show me the numbers, man.  I showed you the numbers that suggest that a lack of religion doesn't hurt social ills.  Just look at the liberal Dutch.  They even teach evolution in schools there!

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,10:33

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me the numbers, man. I showed you the numbers that suggest that a lack of religion doesn't hurt social ills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, a few < numbers. >
Also, see < here. >
Notice two things: when comparing violent assaults, suddenly the U.S. doesn't look so bad:

Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40

But what about that murder rate? To answer your question:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are blacks more likely to commit crimes, or are poor people more likely to commit crimes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000):

3.4 - White
25.8 - Black
3.2 - Other
Note: this doesn't take into account the reasons behind the discrepancy. But notice this bit:

Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91).

This demonstates my earlier point about the need for caution when comparing America with more ethnically homogeneous countries. This point also applies to other social ills. Think about this: if Christianity is so useless in creating a stable society, then why did America's exploding crime rates coincide with the secularization of the public sphere in the mid-sixties? And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life? And morality is indeed tied to crime: check out Giuliani's application of the "Broken Windows" theory to New York City. Get rid of the hookers and grifters, and watch the murder rate drop. Liberals predicted the utter failure of this approach, which of course demonstrated its usefulness to any rational mind. Its subsequent success was practically guaranteed.
Wait, it gets worse: the FBI (coincidentally, I am sure) includes Hispanic criminals under the "White Offenders" hate crimes category, even though Hispanic victims get their own box. This, of course, artificially inflates the crime rates of European-Americans. Now, who doesn't have it in for us?
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 02 2005,11:37

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 02 2005,16:33)
Think about this: if Christianity is so useless in creating a stable society, then why did America's exploding crime rates coincide with the secularization of the public sphere in the mid-sixties? And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you check the statistics, it is because Roe vs Wade made abortion available.  The subsequent reduction in teenagers caused the reduction in crime rate.

Quite fascinating stuff, statistics.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,11:49

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem here became clear to me while reading your post.
Quote
Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work.
I don't think this is true at all. In fact, most academics ARE white, heterosexual Christian men. You might as well make another baseless claim like "Jesus ate babies!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Undoubtedly academics are mostly white, straight, and Christian (although do you have a source for the latter? I suspect the rates of atheism among professors, if uncovered, would raise Middle America's roof!;)) But how is this inconsistent with my contention? Self-hatred and "enlightenment" values go hand-in-hand, after all. Well, that's all for now. Later, I'll hand out a fun homework assignment and answer any follow-up questions..........
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 02 2005,14:25

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Paley,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't your numbers match < these numbers >?

I trust nationmaster.com a little more, as they are not trying to make a social point about anything, just supplying data.

I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America.  However, they are also disproportionally poor.  I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal.  I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime.  And that being black increases your chances of being poor.  The question is, if whites were more likely to be poor, would whites be disproportionally responsible for crime.  I would say yes.  But our society hasn't run that experiment, yet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your logic is flawed.  For in removing black crimes you are also removing poor crimes in America, while not removing poor crimes from the other countries (which they certainly have).  This flawed logic of yours seems to be a theme.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about this: if Christianity is so useless in creating a stable society, then why did America's exploding crime rates coincide with the secularization of the public sphere in the mid-sixties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 When the baby boomers reached their late teens crime increased.  That's when people do crime.  No suprise there.  The coinciding was a coincidence.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because that happens to be about 20 years after Roe v. Wade.  Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.  And since more unwanted children were aborted after Roe v. Wade there were less criminals 17-20 years afterward.  Simple math.  And it relies nothing on Reagan.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And morality is indeed tied to crime: check out Giuliani's application of the "Broken Windows" theory to New York City. Get rid of the hookers and grifters, and watch the murder rate drop. Liberals predicted the utter failure of this approach, which of course demonstrated its usefulness to any rational mind. Its subsequent success was practically guaranteed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory.  All across our nation.  There is no consistent correlation between crime fighting methods and less crime.  You are confused with correlation and causation.  Giuliani may have been in charge when crime fell, but that doesn't mean he was the cause.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,15:54

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't your numbers match these numbers?

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


Try < here > if you want some background.
Please sample Figures 6 and 7 while you're browsing.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America. However, they are also disproportionally poor. I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal. I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote
And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life?
Because that happens to be about 20 years after Roe v. Wade. Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals. And since more unwanted children were aborted after Roe v. Wade there were less criminals 17-20 years afterward. Simple math. And it relies nothing on Reagan.

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


My cipherin' suggests a period of 8 years. But then, I never did get the New Math.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When the baby boomers reached their late teens crime increased. That's when people do crime. No suprise there. The coinciding was a coincidence.

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


The Woodstock generation turning to debauchery I can believe. But if you read criminology books from the time period, the overriding concern was the nature of the crime committed, not merely its frequency. The utter viciousness and callousness of the young thugs shocked many seasoned professionals. All except evolutionists, of course. But they're hardly professional, so never mind.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory. All across our nation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really. I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston. You know, the cities that started patrolling their red-light districts. But what am I telling you guys for, ya'll are probably still sporting the bruises.... :D
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 03 2005,03:59

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 02 2005,21:54)
But if you read criminology books from the time period, the overriding concern was the nature of the crime committed, not merely its frequency.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm - if you read the current literature instead of the out of date literature, maybe you would be more aware of what was going on.  :)
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 03 2005,08:23

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try here if you want some background.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 And why do these numbers disagree as well?  Can you explain the discrepency?  I didn't read all of that, as I don't have the time, nor do I really care all that much.  But if you want more, seemingly different data, check out figure 2b on < this >.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Numbers?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My cipherin' suggests a period of 8 years. But then, I never did get the New Math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clearly math is not your strong point at all. < Crime rates fell in 94 >.  < Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 73 >.  < That makes 21 years >.

< Here's an article > that explains the logic.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really. I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Simply false.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:10

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm - if you read the current literature instead of the out of date literature, maybe you would be more aware of what was going on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back to your < Playstation >, sonny. The big people are talking.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why do these numbers disagree as well? Can you explain the discrepency? I didn't read all of that, as I don't have the time, nor do I really care all that much. But if you want more, seemingly different data, check out figure 2b on this.

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


Hey, I'm not the one who mistook a newsblurb for a scientific survey, and then switched to a different set of figures when pressed for more detail. But if you could ever trouble your bad self to click on the blue line, you'll see that the charts are derived from data compiled by the < International Crime Victim Survey >, which is...oh, who am I kidding. As if you'll ever look. Here:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is the most farreaching programme of standardised sample surveys to look a householders experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of unsafety in a large number of countries. This page summarises the development of the ICVS.

There were two main reasons for setting up this project. The first was the inadequacy of offences recorded by the police for comparing crime in different countries. The second was the absence of any alternative standardised measure.

Police figures are problematic for comparative purposes because the vast majority of incidents the police know about are notified by victims, and any differences in propensity to report in different countries will undermine the comparability of the amount of crime counted by the police. Moreover, official police figures vary because of differences in legal definitions, recording practices, and precise rules for classifying and counting incidents. These limitations are well-established. A number of countries have independently mounted crime or victimisation surveys to asses national crime problems- and the ICVS mirrors their approach. Such surveys ask representative samples of the population about selected offences they have experienced over a given time. They are interested in incidents are whether or not reported to the police, and indeed, the reasons why people do and do not choose to notify the police. They thus provide both a more realistic count of how many people are affected by crime and - if the surveys are repeated- a measure of trends in crime, unaffected by changes in victims reporting behaviour or administrative changes in recording crime.


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


As for the methodology:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CATI method

The technical management of all (but Finland and Malta) of the surveys in the industrialised countries has been carried out by Interview, a Dutch surveying company. Interview subcontracted fieldwork to survey companies in the participating countries, while maintaining responsibility for the questionnaire, sample selection and inteview procedures. The survey on Malta was done according to the Face to Face method, supervised by UNICRI.

sampling: a sample of between 1000 and 2000 households was drawn by random dialing of telephone numbers. Non relavant contacts (like companies) were ignored. Within a household, there was a random selection of a household member aged over 16. In case of a refusal, this household member was not replaced. The process continues until the agreed amount of completed interviews were reached. An exeption to this procedure is Finland, a random selection of individual were drawn from the population register. Also an exeption was Northern Ireland and some rural parts of Spain, since telephone penatration was low the interviews were taken face to face, but also computer assisted.

response rates: in the eleven industrialised countries in the 1996 sweep taken as a whole, 67% of the respondents selected for interview agreed to take part. this was an improvement on the overall response rate of 60% for the twelve countries of the 1992 sweep and on the 43% response rate in 1989. In 1996, response varied from 40% in the USA to 80% or more in Austria, Finland and Northern Ireland. For the seven countries which took part both in 1992 and 1996, the response rate was about the same or better in five, but fell slightly in two (the Netherlands and USA). For the three countries which had surveys in 1996 and 1989, responses were lower in Switzerland but higher in the other two.

CATI: the interviews were done by telephone. The interviewer reads the questions (and instructions) from a computer screen. The answers are directly entered into the computer system and used to select the next question. (For instance, the items on car crimes were skipped if the household has no cars.)



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


There's much more, of course, but this will get you started. Of course, I can't read it out loud to you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly math is not your strong point at all. Crime rates fell in 94. Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 73. That makes 21 years.

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


Why, it certainly does. But the time from Roe v. Wade to the Reagan presidency was only 8 years, just as I wrote, apparently to no avail. And that's < when crime started falling. > I must admit, however, that it did start rising again in the mid-eighties, so there wasn't as much net change during the Big R's tenure as I thought. And I am aware that crime continued to jump until the Republican Revolution in 1994. When, of course, crime immediately began to plummet despite dire liberal forecasts of the crime wave sure to follow in the wake of welfare reform. By the way, whatever your reader charges, it's way too much.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory. All across our nation. There is no consistent correlation between crime fighting methods and less crime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but there was something < special > about the crime drop in the Big Apple, no matter how badly you may want to wish it away.* I bet you wept in frustration as Giuliani exposed the city's gangsta-hugging tactics for the crap they were, and are. So typical: conservatives have to change the tire in the thunderstorm while the libs watch from the safety of the local Starbuck's. And bitch about how warm their frappuccino's getting.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston.
Simply false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Really? >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another facet of the recent decline is that until lately it has been driven primarily by the largest U.S. cities. In 1995, 40 percent of the national drop in homicide could be accounted for by just six cities. Given its large share of the national population, and its relatively high homicide rate in 1993, New York Citys 67 percent reduction in homicide from 1993 to 1998 itself accounts for 17 percent of the national decline during this period. But New Yorks experience has not been unique; over the same period, the number of homicides has dropped in San Diego by 68 percent, in Boston by 65 percent, in Los Angeles by 60 percent, in San Antonio by 60 percent, in Houston by 43 percent, in New Orleans by 42 percent, in Detroit by 26 percent, in Philadelphia by 23 percent, in Dallas by 21 percent, and in Chicago by 18 percent. Together with New York, these cities account for 8 percent of the national population, but 59 percent of the decline in homicides. For 1999, statistics from the FBIs preliminary Uniform Crime Report indicate that the largest drops are now occurring in smaller cities, such as Nashville, Tennessee, at 50 percent, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, at 41 percent, as the largest urban areas have now bottomed out.

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


While you're at it, fire your fact-checker as well. :p



*Here's a homework exercise for Constant Lurker: name the sources the author uses to validate the official numbers, and compare with Paley's sources. Discuss any similarities you see.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,12:45

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

I'm trying to imagine what this has to do with the Steves project...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:54

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm trying to imagine what this has to do with the Steves project...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just tryin' to reclaim them, one steve at a time.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 03 2005,15:17

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, I'm not the one who mistook a newsblurb for a scientific survey, and then switched to a different set of figures when pressed for more detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I never mistook any newsblurb for a scientific survey.  I merely did some Google searches for data on the subject at hand.  I didn't find your data, I found other data.  And multiple sources of data so you couldn't claim that I was cooking the numbers.  I'm still not convinced that the vicitmization methodology is superior to raw numbers.  I see flaws in both systems of data gathering.  I really don't care enough to get into a debate on which one is better.  However, I'm glad that you were able to explain the discrepency between the data per my asking.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the time from Roe v. Wade to the Reagan presidency was only 8 years, just as I wrote, apparently to no avail. And that's when crime started falling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Naturally you point to a few years of less crime in the '80s and ignore the 20% drop in crime in the '90s.  < Your link > shows such a drop.  I'm not talking about the year to year fluctuations here.  I'm talking about the < plummeting trend > that happens to be 20 years after Roe vs. Wade.

You seem to not understand the difference between people trying to take credit for change, and people being responible for that change.  I couldn't care less that you find papers where people claim to have made the world better.  Correlation and Causation aren't the same.  If I cared more and had the time, I'd bother to find published arguments that claim that Guiliani is not responsible for the majority of the crime drop in NY.  I'll give credit where credit is due though, and say that a good portion of the drop IN NY was to his policies.

I'd like to point out that yes, the murder rate fell mostly in the major US cities.  But that is hardly suprising.  That is where the poor and violent live.  And when the inner-city poor have access to abortions there will be less unwanted children to commit crime in the future.  Simple logic.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But New Yorks experience has not been unique; over the same period, the number of homicides has dropped in San Diego by 68 percent, in Boston by 65 percent, in Los Angeles by 60 percent, in San Antonio by 60 percent, in Houston by 43 percent, in New Orleans by 42 percent, in Detroit by 26 percent, in Philadelphia by 23 percent, in Dallas by 21 percent, and in Chicago by 18 percent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, Guiliani was good!  His policies helped the entire nation, that or the Republican factions in Los Angeles, San Diego and Boston finally took charge.  Thank goodness.  What you are left to show is that the synchronous crime drops in each of these cities was due to independant policy changes.  (Certainly it wasn't due to a pan-American policy change such as *gasp* abortion!)

I grow tired of your tireless unwaranted self-aggrandizing.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,15:58

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I grow tired of your tireless unwaranted self-aggrandizing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I can be an ass sometimes. All part of the show, I guess, even for sincere folk like me. But I do appreciate your arguments, and you gave me a few things to think about. Obviously, I still maintain my position has more evidence behind it, but there's no doubt that America doesn't abide by its ideals very often, and that's a shame. Thanks for being so reasonable.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 04 2005,04:50

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America. However, they are also disproportionally poor. I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal. I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime. And that being black increases your chances of being poor. The question is, if whites were more likely to be poor, would whites be disproportionally responsible for crime. I would say yes. But our society hasn't run that experiment, yet.

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


One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. < The Color of Crime >, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several < criminologists > who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.

The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
Far from being guilty of racially profiling innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.

police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals. (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)

[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Marylands Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit white collar offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.

The single greatest indicator of an areas crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 04 2005,09:13

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

The other issue is that the vast majority of "Black" people are not incarcerated for violent crimes. They are in prison mostly because of drug crime. The numbers at the government site for Health and Human services (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm) show that while 13 percent of drug users are "Black", they make up 38% of those arrested for drug use and 59% of those convicted of drug use.


< http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm[/i] >

There has been a lot of data generated recently that suggests that for a variety of reasons an African American is more likely than a white person to be charged with a crime, and even more likely to be convicted.  There are some serious studies that suggest this bias is a major contributing factor to the apparently higher rate of black crime than white crime.  Reasons  include the poverty level - lack of access to good lawyers both before and during a trial.

< http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm >

Statistics on black crime are, on the surface, very bleak. There are, however, some very important factors that help to influence the numbers. Consider those and a strong case for a much different view unfolds. Since 62% of persons admitted to Federal prison and 31.1% of those admitted to State prison for the first time were sentenced because of drug offenses, let us first take a look at the racial disparity in the war on drugs:

The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug  users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession  arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans  make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest  rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition,  since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons  incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in
that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses.


In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those  individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the  drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The  Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)  A CNN article in 1996 sited U.S. government figures that show more than 90
percent of all federal prosecutions for crack cocaine in 1995 were of African  American defendants. In addition, unlike convictions for powered cocaine and
other drugs (which wealthy, Caucasian defendants are more likely to use), a conviction for selling crack cocaine can carry a lengthy prison term without benefit of parole.

Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 04 2005,09:22

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

It must also be noted that while Color o' Crime focuses on blacks, it doesn't let whites off the hook. If I'm not mistaken, they go to great pains to emphasize the relatively high crime rate of whites relative to North East Asians.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 04 2005,09:41

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Thoughts about the victimization methodology.

At first, I thought the victimization methodology would be a valid way to determine crime statistics.  But then I realized what's going on in those studies.  You're asking these liberal people in foreign countries if they feel victimized.  Surely, you can see the tendency for error that will result.  But, I thought, what's a better way to do it?  Small crimes have a tendency to not be reported or over sensationalized.  But, murders don't.  Our police force is pretty good about counting bodies and no one can claim that they "felt murdered" in a survey.

If we're going to look at one statistic to determine crime, it might as well be < murder >.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 04 2005,10:29

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Thanks for the links, Mr. MidnightVoice. The first link is broken, however.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition, since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in
that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses.


In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128) A CNN article in 1996 sited U.S. government figures that show more than 90
percent of all federal prosecutions for crack cocaine in 1995 were of African American defendants. In addition, unlike convictions for powered cocaine and
other drugs (which wealthy, Caucasian defendants are more likely to use), a conviction for selling crack cocaine can carry a lengthy prison term without benefit of parole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once heard an African-American (Congresswoman? Spokeswoman? I forget...) propose the same argument on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, but some white guy (yeah, yeah, I know; Paley should have taken his Ginkoba that evening) seemed to refute it by pointing out that while Crack and Coke may be chemically similar, Crack is far more addictive, thus having the greater potential for stimulating criminal behavior. As he put it, "You never hear of coke neighborhoods, only crack neighborhoods. Why? Because crack more readily leads to the type of violent, impulsive behavior that fuels the crime rate. The police crackdown was a direct response to the pleas of the inner-city communities to do something about the epidemic. In fact, these policies were and are very popular among community leaders." Also, I remember reading in The End of Racism that when prior criminal history and the specific circumstances of the crime were taken into account, then the Black-White sentencing discrepancy disappears. Although narrow in focus, < this study > supports that contention. But I'll see what else I can find.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thoughts about the victimization methodology.

At first, I thought the victimization methodology would be a valid way to determine crime statistics. But then I realized what's going on in those studies. You're asking these liberal people in foreign countries if they feel victimized. Surely, you can see the tendency for error that will result. But, I thought, what's a better way to do it? Small crimes have a tendency to not be reported or over sensationalized. But, murders don't. Our police force is pretty good about counting bodies and no one can claim that they "felt murdered" in a survey.

If we're going to look at one statistic to determine crime, it might as well be murder.

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


No, they ask the people if they have been victimized. Either someone burgles your home or not, either someone beats you up or not. Sure, close calls happen, just like < faked crime statistics. > In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 04 2005,12:53

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are whites the only members of society?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 05 2005,03:55

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, this should read: "do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white Europeans?"


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are whites the only members of society?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) No, but let's face it: when evos talk about the "dangers" of fundamentalist Christianity, they're not referring to Joseph Lowery. They mean Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. White Christians, in other words.
2) When trying to measure the effects of a single variable (religion), it is important to match groups that are as identical as possible in all other ways. This avoids confounding factors.
3) You may be forgetting, Cogzoid, that many of our European friends could be fined or imprisoned for frankly discussing racial matters. By keeping the discussion focused on whites, people like Midnightvoice can participate without fearing a Midnightknock on their door. Even the beautiful people can't fight The Man; take < Brigitte Bardot >, for example. Of course, given the current < situation > in Gay Paree, she might have to assume a new identity. May I suggest < Cassandra >? Mr. Newman, a remake of "Burn On" is badly needed......
Well, we can argue the causes of differential crime rates until even Homer nods. But this part of the study is also worth debating:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The single greatest indicator of an areas crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, the floor is open......
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 11 2005,10:19

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Well my, my, my, let's get a wheelbarrow for Hillary's top hitters - I don't think their hind legs are of much use right now. Ya sure don't have much of an appetite without the courts to enshine your hunches in Law - but I guess that goes without saying. After all, why else would you be quiverin' behind Big Brother's britches?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,15:56

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

I'm bumping this thread for those who want to see how the debate really transpired. I'll let the reader decide for himself which of us is closer to the truth.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,07:24

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Last bump, I promise. But I think the lurkers should be able to evaluate the Cogzoid-Paley debate for themselves, if they wish.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,14:43

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Cogzoid wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough.

Here's data on murder rates by country:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap >

Notice how the US is in the top 25 in between great countries like Bulgaria and Armenia. While most of civilized (and secular!;) Europe have half or less of the murder rate.

I found this bit of data on abortions:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_abo_cap >

And finally rapes:
< http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap >

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


By the by, if yer just interested in objective counting, what's rape statistics doing in there?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 17 2006,19:35

I don't think a "sticky" will be needed. Threads in Ikonboard float to the top on recency of additions in the thread.

I will be encouraging PT contributors to make use of the ability to move comments from PT to this thread.
Posted by: Tim Hague on Jan. 17 2006,21:31

Hello Larry.  Welcome to After the Bar Closes.  

If I don't believe a theory is useful, why would I use it?  I would say that using a theory implies some kind of acceptance that the theory may be useful.  

You must also be careful not to fall into the 'evolution is just a theory' trap, because evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory.
Posted by: Moses on Jan. 18 2006,02:54

<quote>Comment #73125

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 18, 2006 04:45 AM (e)

That was after a Supreme Court ruling. So far, there has been no Supreme Court ruling on ID, and no evidence that any of the states are being intimidated by threats of anti-ID lawsuits. In fact, one of the Ohio board of education members said, “let them sue us.” A million dollars is just mad money for a state.</quote>

Silly Larry and his silly theories of "a new name = a new trial" theory of "stupid courts."  Everyone with a brain knows that ID is creationism.  It was just renamed in a contest right after Edwards v. Aguillard or McLean v. Arkansas (can't remember which right now and really don't care).  Therefore, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.  Then, the new name was exposed for all to see in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

And that, of course, is the beauty of the legal system.  When you try to dress the emperor in new clothes, the legal system just doesn't care and looks a the fat, old-man underneath.  We don't need to have 5,000 trials over 5,000 slightly variant names.  We just need to see it and act.
Posted by: Corkscrew on Jan. 18 2006,02:55

Can someone please move Larry's comment to the Bathroom Wall or something? Now he's whining in earnest, the thread is guaranteed to go to at least 200 posts, which will make it hard to locate genuine points amidst the incipient morass of stupidity.
Posted by: Raging Bee on Jan. 18 2006,02:55

Notice how Larry only complains about off-topic posts AFTER he loses every off-topic argument he chose to start?
Posted by: ben on Jan. 18 2006,02:55

I think everyone but Larry has noticed that.
Posted by: Mr Christopher on Jan. 18 2006,03:43

<blockquote>Can someone please move Larry’s comment to the Bathroom Wall or something? Now he’s whining in earnest, the thread is guaranteed to go to at least 200 posts, which will make it hard to locate genuine points amidst the incipient morass of stupidity.</blockquote>

I agree with the cork screw
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2006,03:51

Hoorah!
Glad to see this.
Maybe less threads will be getting trashed.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 18 2006,06:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming, then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ? Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The litigation is not about protecting evolution. The litigation is about preventing the state from advocating a particular religion. You can't teach a class that advocates religious doctrine in a public school. It doesn't matter what label you slap on it.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 18 2006,06:09

Hooray, Larry is finally here, well sort of...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Larry wrote:

Also, if the public does not know that ID is deceptive, then why not teach the public about ID in school so that they would be better able to make up their own minds about it ? By not teaching about ID in school, we are promoting ignorance, not reducing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? That's the kind of class that "dumb" Mirecki was going to teach!
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 18 2006,07:04

"If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming, then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ? Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class."

Becuase idiots like yourself want to force your views upon my child.

It's no different than cheating or threatening my child. I will stand up and stop your from imposing your personal beliefs on my child.

You want a child who believe in they myth of Creation...then fvck with your own childs mind.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman on Jan. 18 2006,07:21

<blockquote>Comment #73124 posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on January 18, 2006 03:22 AM

Since the Bathroom Wall is once more available, stuff that looks like it’s not doing anything useful here is being moved there. If you are looking for your deathless prose, try there if it isn’t showing up here.</blockquote>

I cannot believe that my response to your Comment #73162 was removed to the Bathroom  Wall.     My response was definitely on-topic.    You removed my response not because it was off-topic,  but because you disagreed with it.

Also,   two of my responses to off-topic posts have been removed,  but the original off-topic posts,  Comment #73088 and Comment #73128,  both of which are personally directed at me,  are still here.  

I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act.

It is about time that the commenters on Panda's Thumb were treated with some respect.     Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine.

I expect this post to be removed too,   but I hope that some of the commenters here get a chance to read it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 18 2006,07:38

Hey *I* read your comments Larry, and they're still mindless.

Yep we should teach the controversy about intelligent design creationism, that non-scientific theory in crisis.  Let kids decide is my motto.  

As far as the course content goes, let's start with the Wedge Document.  Children should know that the Discovery Institute's two governing goals include:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Let's help kids learn the dangers of replacing our scientific understanding with "theistic understandings" (Pat Robertson's comments on a variety of subjects will be used as an example of "theistic understandings").

Then let's add the "Teach The Controversy" campaign championed by the Discovery Institute.  We'll follow up those lessons with an in-depth study of the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

Then let's teach what "peer reviewed" means.  Let's also teach kids what the "scientific method" is as well as devote some time to identifying what is a testable theory and what is not.  What is science and what is pseudo-science (intelligent design, healing crystals, cancer curing magnets, palm reading, etc).  We should cover what is natural and what is supernatural too.

Yep, we should be teaching about intelligent design creationism in public schools.  You will not get an arguement from me on that one.
Posted by: rdog29 on Jan. 18 2006,07:51

Hey Larry -

Lay off the opinion poll crap already! As pointed out many times before, science is not conducted by opinion polls. What is Constitutional to teach is also not decided by opinion polls.  

I suppose if enough people wanted Holocaust denial taught in history class, that would be OK too, huh?

Instead of relying on opinion polls, why don't you and the other IDiots come up with a theory and some data to support it?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2006,07:54

Quote (Guest @ Jan. 18 2006,13:21)
...
I cannot believe that my response to your Comment #73162 was removed to the Bathroom Wall. My response was definitely on-topic. You removed my response not because it was off-topic, but because you disagreed with it.

Also, two of my responses to off-topic posts have been removed, but the original off-topic posts, Comment #73088 and Comment #73128, both of which are personally directed at me, are still here.

I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act.

It is about time that the commenters on Panda's Thumb were treated with some respect. Without the commenters, Panda's Thumb would be nothing, and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine.

I expect this post to be removed too, but I hope that some of the commenters here get a chance to read it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.

Let me point out to you what annoys people.

You post on a thread. Your point sounds on topic. Your backup arguments however are normally incorect.

To refute you there are really only 2 choices:

1. Ignore your incorrect statement. Leaving lurkers to conclude you are right.

or

2. Point out your errors .Where the thread starts going off-topic.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 18 2006,08:02



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

Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine.

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



And the evidence that would support this statement is, what, precisely?

PT in its first week passed 1,000 visits per day. We're coming up on our 2e6th visit. I suspect if every post simply referred commenters to the AE AtBC forum, that the visit figures would not change by much. Besides which, J.A. Davison has already laid claim to this argument, saying that banning him would cause PT to wither and die. Guess what? Traffic has been up since then.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on Jan. 18 2006,08:10

<quote>Whatever damage was being done was not irreversible. The alleged damage to the impressionable minds of the students could have been undone by brainwashing those minds in the great truths of evolution theory.

</quote>

Larry provides a living case example that disproves his own statement.

If post-hoc exposure to actual data and evidence could "brainwash" anybody, you would be our willing slave by now.  We've spent weeks directing him to the completely verifiable mountains of evidence detailing aspects and support of evolutionary theory, but he consistently puts his hands over his eyes and willfully ignores it.

psychological defense mechanisms know no bounds; once exposed to a general set of theories that fit a pre-supposed worldview, it's quite hard to shake.

I personally have witnessed what happens when kids of high school age are exposed to slick but mis-representative ideas like ID.  they initially cause mass confusion at best, and completely confirm ideologies for some.

that's why we teach science in science class, because it's based on evidence and experiment, not supposition and ideology.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,10:29

Larry sobbed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



man, he sounds more and more like JAD with each  post he makes.

makes me think they share a similar pychological malady.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,11:25

for those wondering about evopeach:

here is the thread where he was banned from PT:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....2;st=10 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moderator



Posts: 23
Joined: May 2002
 Posted: Oct. 22 2005,12:54    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the board rules

Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach". Others who want to continue to use this BB for playground antics will follow. Is that clear?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



somewhere about a week before that, evo made all of PT a bet that the plaintiffs would lose dover, with the stakes being that the loser would leave PT.

I can't find the original bet he proposed now, but found several references to it.

If anybody finds it, post it here.

it should be somewhere around Oct. 15th, if that helps any.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 18 2006,11:31

STJ, I believe you are looking for this thread.  Funny that I read and bumped this thread yesterday, or maybe the day before.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....14;t=39 >

But evo peach is still posting on PT.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,14:12

don't forget that a lot of the comments are transfered from PT (red bolded poster handles), and so if they had quotes in them, you will see angle brackets instead of square.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 18 2006,14:37

Crikey - you learn something new every day..

... and you mean Larry's not  'here'?
Posted by: Nyarlathotep on Jan. 18 2006,14:42

"counter-intuitive and contrary to reason" certainly seems to be Larry`s mantra for all facts that run contrary to his preconceived notions.  Leaving aside the fact that a great many of us find the idea of a non-corporeal person that is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to be both completely meaningless, and useless except as a convention of langage, the concept is very "counter-intuitive and contrary to reason."  Larry, most of modern science, including things that you can in no way pretend to deny are based on theories that are "counter-intuitive and contrary to reason."  It is very bizarre to think that a picture can be broken down into innumerable tiny pieces, transmitted through the air, and reassabled in real time to form a comprehensible image, and yet this happens every time you turn on your television.  Modern science is much more complicated and messy than the science merely as a mental exercise that was practiced by Aristotle and his like.  Like it or not, the mere fact that a theory is not inherently obvious to the most cursory glance is no proof of its invalidity.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,15:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... and you mean Larry's not  'here'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



if you see larry's name in black, he posted that here. if  you see it in red, he posted it somewhere else and somebody tossed it in here because it was stupid and offtopic.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 18 2006,16:09

If this thread is now the official successor to < The Bathroom Wall > (which was left read-only since Aug. 18), maybe the link in the "Information" box of the < http://www.pandasthumb.org/ > page should be updated to point here?

Oh, and And the parent note of this thread could have a secondary link to its predecessor thread.

Henry
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2006,21:03

It would be good if this thread became popular to post on.

I used to like the bathroom wall. You could have all sorts of off-topic conversations without trashing a sensible thread.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 19 2006,10:37

Thanks for restarting The Bathroom Wall. It needs to be better integrated with PT, but this is much better than nothing.
Posted by: billgascoyne on Jan. 19 2006,10:45

One of the premier trade papers of the electronics industry posted a letter:

< http://www.eetimes.com/news....7100146 >

to which I have replied, and it looks like they're going to print my reply, which I include here (they will probably edit one or two things):

OK, business is slow and you guys are trying to start an argument here,
aren't you?

Jack G. Atkinson Jr.'s letter is straight Bible-belt creationist tripe.
It's an argument from incredulity ("I have qualifications that have
nothing to do with the issue, and I can't imagine 'X', Q.E.D.") combined
with an argument from authorities (Gitt and Behe) that have been
thoroughly discredited. Go ahead, folks, read Gitt and Behe, then go to
www.talkorigins.org and search for Gitt and Behe.In a nutshell, Gitt
missuses Claude Shannon's founding work in information theory, and Behe
rehashes the 19th century watchmaker analogy of William Paley. On top of
that, Atkinson uses the key creationist phrase "only a theory" which
indicates that he has no idea what the word means in a scientific
context (hint: it's way beyond the word he really means, which is
"hypothesis"). Still more standard creationist ideas can be found in his
inappropriate conflation of cosmology and biology. Creationists
typically get confused here, what with the Big Bang getting us from 13
billion years ago up to 4.5 billion years ago, geology (which Atkinson
ignores) giving us an idea about how long ago the Earth and the solar
system were formed, and biological evolution (which doesn't say anything
at all about the "particles" he complains about) taking us the rest of
the way. When you absolutely know that it all started "In the beginning"
and that was during one week about 6000 years ago, there's not much
difference in your mind between millions of years and billions of years,
or cosmology and biology.

One must admit that the entire "particles to man" flow does indeed have
one huge scientific hole in it, called "abiogenesis," that is, life from
non-life. Yeah, it's true, no one on this planet really knows how it
happened. Atkinson, however, would have all inquiry in this matter
brought to a screeching halt with the words, "God did it." Where would
we be if Ben Franklin had been satisfied with that answer regarding
lightning? The proper scientific answer is not "God did it" but "we
don't know," which is the beginning of wisdom. The bottom line, Mr.
Atkinson, is that what's under attack is not simply evolution, not
simply biology education, but science itself. And that jolly well should
be of concern to future EEs, and present ones.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 19 2006,10:45

evopeach:

You may genuinely enjoy < this book >. Not only does it cover a lot of ground you seem totally unfamiliar with, but it would let others know that your subsequent pronouncements along these lines were lies rather than merely ignorance.

It's pretty easy to understand. Granted, it's an entire book, but outside your religous reservation, knowledge doesn't come packaged in Received Slogans. Sorry about that.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 19 2006,11:37

flint:

Evo isn't posting here, he's having his PT posts tossed in here for obvious reasons.

when a person's name is highlighted in red, it means their post originated somewhere else.

fyi.
Posted by: steve s on Jan. 19 2006,12:34

<quote>Oh good lord I just saw the Dr. Brazeau stuff.</quote>

Ghost is an appropriate name, considering he just got hit by a Mack truck.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 19 2006,20:13

hmm.

I'm working on a theory (like Paley ;) ), and am wondering if our Islander friends can clarify Blair's position on ID for me?

I've read several UK news articles, but all seem to actually deal with his positions kind of indirectly.

Is he voicing 'teach the controversy', open denial of evolutionary theory, or just what exactly?

thanks
Posted by: Tim Hague on Jan. 19 2006,22:04

Keiths, Sir_Toejam,

thanks for the responses.  

I'm just having a think about where down the line a heritable mutation might occur, and I'm concentrating on sexual reproduction.  

I'm using the definition of mutation from talk origins - mutation is a change in a gene.  I'm looking at the types of mutation as well and thinking about which types are most likely to result in a heritable mutation.  

If anyone knows of any studies comparing the likelihood of various types of mutation and can point me in that direction I'd be grateful.
Posted by: Raging Bee on Jan. 20 2006,05:59

The PT thread on "Falsifying ID" was closed to comments, so I'm stomping off in a huff and posting my response to Mr. Heddle here.  I am an ARTISTE, and I must EXPRESS myself...   :p

Mr. Heddle: I never said anything about a "gap."  What are you asking me?

If the cosmological constant were not fine tuned then there would be no stars...

I believe what you mean to say is "If the cosmological constant were something other than what it is..."  The difference is important: the mere fact that the constant is to our liking, does not prove it was "fine-tuned" by anyone.  And by the way, if you want to advance a truly scientific hypothesis about "fine-tuning," you'll have to postulate a specific mechanism by which such "fine-tuning" can take place.  Unless of course it's by a supernatural agency, which takes us outside the realm of science...and even astrology...
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,06:09

Raging Bee:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difference is important: the mere fact that the constant is to our liking, does not prove it was "fine-tuned" by anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


David Heddle has already addressed this: As he sees it, the purpose of the universe is to produce us. This is, as Heddle himself says, something you simply accept as a given. We are not an arbitrary result of contingent accidents, we are the *purposeful end product* of the universe. Yep, you and me (and especially David).

And Heddle, as I read him, even admits that if you do NOT accept that the universe was crafted expressly to produce us, then in addition to being wrong, you have no particular reason to prefer any set of constants over any other.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,15:46

Savagemutt:

I think you're on the right track. Heddle is a Believer. There are certain areas that are simply not subject to evaluation. He knows this in an instinctive way. I don't think he's deliberately obscure, I think that his knowledge is doing battle with his, well, brainwashing seems a harsh term but I can't think of anything more descriptive.

So it works out the way it often does against this sort of belief system. We are here because we HAVE to be, doctrine permits nothing less. We must work backwards to determine why this must be so. At some point the *underlying assumptions* are arbitrary, and Heddle realizes that. But he also knows that his underlying assumptions are REQUIRED, his faith tells him so. Therefore they must be "scientific" in the sense that science describes the Real World.

So I don't read him as two-faced at all. He KNOWS God intended him. He knows that evolution is internally consistent, and consistent with the evidence. He basically understands the evidence. He knows God must have intended this. He knows that any interpretation of the evidence that does not *require* his existence must be wrong. He understands that evolution does NOT require his existence, but otherwise it's rock-solid. What to do, what to do?

I really feel kind of sorry for Heddle. He's both intelligent enough and educated enough to understand the relevant aspects of reality, but his mind was turned at too early an age to recover. What got wired into his brain early, can't be 100% reconciled with what got educated into his brain later. Neither can be discarded, but the two cannot possibly be honestly reconciled. It's kind of interesting to watch this play out.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 20 2006,18:11

Does anybody know whats up with the Cobb appeal?

I havent seen word one on this in weeks.

has it gone to decision already?

any expected release date if so?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 20 2006,23:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm working on a theory (like Paley ;) ), and am wondering if our Islander friends can clarify Blair's position on ID for me?

I've read several UK news articles, but all seem to actually deal with his positions kind of indirectly.

Is he voicing 'teach the controversy', open denial of evolutionary theory, or just what exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody else has answered you, so I'll try.

Blair is a believer in choice, and the creationist stuff got caught up as part of this.  He may well not have a strong opinion on evolution: my guess is that he believes it to be true, but doesn't think about it.  Most Britons are like that.

He wouldn't push any policy on this even if he was a creationist.  Partly because it's not his job: the British system is more diffuse, so it would be the job of the Education Secretary (who's got too many other things to worry about now).  He would also be aware that it's a vote loser: he would look like a fundamentalist and would be attacked from all sides, including from within his party.

In summary: one less thing to worry about.

Bob
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 21 2006,04:58



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

Would it not make sense to alter the link to the Bathroom Wall on PT to bring people here rather than the defunct wall.

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



Sure it would. I had a look, and did not easily locate where the link information is kept. So I've asked Reed Cartwright to have a shot at it.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 21 2006,04:59

Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 21 2006,06:32)
...
The general public is opposed to more faith schools, especially as it would entail an expansion of Islamic schools. Blair seems genuinely suprised at the furore.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dean,
I don't think many parents would object to their boys going to this faith school.

< http://www.etoncollege.com/default.asp >

;-)
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 21 2006,09:49

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 21 2006,15:44)
guthrie,
I would dissagree on the BBC being influenced by the government of the day anymore.

About the article though. I doubt if Tony Blair had any idea whatsoever about what that school taught. I would hazard a guess that he just said any old crap to avoid appearing ignorant.

There is something wrong with the UK political system when a MP can't just say "I do not know, I will find out and report back to you".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would dissagree on the BBC being influenced by the government of the day anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HHmm, well, we shall have to agree to disagree.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About the article though. I doubt if Tony Blair had any idea whatsoever about what that school taught. I would hazard a guess that he just said any old crap to avoid appearing ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree entirely.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is something wrong with the UK political system when a MP can't just say "I do not know, I will find out and report back to you".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely.  My knowledge of parliamentary preocedure is miniscle, but I do know that they have plenty of researchers who could find things outquickly enough (A few days), but the problem then is that Blair might have to take a stand on the issue, something he is I think desperate to avoid doing.  Its hard to find issues on which he really truly takes a stand, rather than saying something wishy washy and content free.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,06:57

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 22 2006,12:38)
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have brought up a whole shed-full of points there.

I agree with just about all you say.

While I think state education is a good thing in principle. It does not seem to be managed with excellence.

State education in the UK sometimes gives the impression that its main purpose is to benefit teachers. Other times to benefit NGO inspectors.

What in principal is wrong with schools setting admission standards? Why have we just about abandoned the grammer school?

Is there a good reason to have a government target of 50% of pupils going to university?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,07:03

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 22 2006,12:38)
[/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldn't agree with that.
It could very well backfire in a big way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I cant quite see how. Sure, we still have the CHurch of England as the official church in this country, but in terms of removing religion from school, I really dont see why it shoule be much of a problem if taken along the lines it can be in the USA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry. I did intend to adress that in my last post, but forgot.

I was not reffering to state schools with a faith base. Rather the schools actually paid for by the churches. I can imagine these closing if it was ilegal to have a faith requirement.

That is something that I do not consider helpfull.
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 22 2006,11:19

[quote=Stephen Elliott,Jan. 22 2006,12:57][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While I think state education is a good thing in principle. It does not seem to be managed with excellence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you can say that about every single human endeavour that you can think of. Every single one. No exceptions.

I start more from broad observations that mandatory basic education is necessary to further peoples betterment and self fulfillment etc. This has historically been state provided, and I cannot see how it can be provided any other way. So, going from this, the question becomes how can we improve things as much as possible given certain constraints like money, time etc etc. For example, smaller class sizes do help somehat to improve test scores. Great, lets reduce class sizes from 30 to 20! But then we need lots more teachers, and more money to spend on them.

Then, managed excellently. I have worked full time in 3 different private companies (I have a chemistry degree). All of them exhibited definite lacks of management excellence. From reading newspapers, I have gathered that some failing schools show a lack of excellence, but when you put a good headmaster/ mistress in place, change a couple of teachers, wait a year or two, then it improves. This suggests to me that said excellence depends as much upon the individuals involved as anything to do with the structure of the organisation etc.

As for benefiting teachers, I know a few teachers, seeing as my mother is a retired primary school teacher. They would chew you out for suggesting that the main purpose of state education is to benefit the teachers, but then they are good teachers- the problem is the bad ones and the people who aid and abet them. (And I have a story or two about that, but they can hardly be aried on a public forum.)

I am too young to rember the grammar school, but the problem with the grammar school system that I recall reading about was that, well apart from being not "practical" enough in the modern sense, it also encouraged elitism.

As for admission standards, the simple question remains- what do you do with the children who cannot get into any school? Sure, some of them are obnoxious toe rags; others have a damaging and enervating home background which makes it almost impossible for them to get on in school.

Universities- I actually agree about the 50% target. I see it as some weird magic trick. I can see no reason to have 50% university educated, because a REAL university education is not suitable for everyone. Sure, i liked some of it, but I'm part intellectual. I would rather we copied germany, which last i knew had trades colleges and suchlike for pupils whose abilities lay less in essay writing or geekery, and more in woodworking or plumbing or design or suchlike.

Of course my occaisional rants about the british economy now being a service oriented one where just about any skill greater than paper shuffling or smooth talking salesmanship doesnt seem necessary is nothing more than my own biased opinion and is said somewhat tongue in cheek. Yet I am sure you know that it sounds good to say that 50% of our youngsters are university educated, even if they never do anything with the degree, and its comparatively worthless compared to old degrees because the modern ones involve much more regurgitation of facts and less actual thinking.

edited to add:
I'll get back to you about the church schools.  Its not something I have really even come across, but your point deserves some consideration.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,13:02

guthrie,
You do raise a lot of good points. far too many to answer in a single post. But I will give a few points of view.

The teachers you mentioned you claimed where good. Fine, they would never have been the problem. I can remember a few bad teachers from my school days, 1 maths teacher in particular belonged in gaol rather than school. The unions made it impossible for the head to sack him. That is wrong.

Admission standards. If you are for them it means seperating students of ability/determination from others. If you are against, it means lumping "bad" students in with "good" ones.

Out of that choice I would opt for school standards and removing disruptive pupils. Give everyone the same oportunity, but remove those that would abuse it and drag others down.

As you have a Chemistry degree you are one of the elite, like it or not. You have a degree that is difficult to obtain and actually is usefull in real work.

A target of 50% University education is pointless though. Especially as most of those degrees will be pretty pointless. How many people with degrees in media studies do we need?

I cynically believe that the government wants the 50% target just to keep employment figures looking better.

A tiered school system is something I would like to consider. Not every pupil is suited to accademic life. Why waste their time and have them disrupt classes? Some students would be better off learning more practical things from an earlier age.

Don't get me wrong here. They should still be taught a broad education and should they decide (later on) they wish for more accademic studies, then it ought to be available.

Testing right now seems to be taking away a lot of teachers freedom to teach. But I suppose it employs a few people in NGOs.

Church schools: In Wigan a lot of the best schools are run by various churches. My sister moved house and started to atend church in order to get her daughter into one. It insists that parents play an active part in their childrens education. Apearances are that this alone improves standards. They do not require a child to pass tests, rather the parents have to do this. Not written exams, but a willingness to assist the school and play a part in the childrens education.

Historically education only relatively recently became a matter of state. All the really old schools were either paid for by parents (public/UK...private/USA) or established by churches.

Oxford University IIRC started as a theological teaching establishment.

Anyway I have rambled on for long enough. This is a very large topic with an awful lot of facets.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 22 2006,13:06

Steve wrote:

"What in principal is wrong with schools setting admission standards? Why have we just about abandoned the grammer school?"

It take it that you didn't go to a Grammar school then Steve??? :p

-- actually Larry got me looking for stuff on this.

Faith schools aren't funded by the church any more Steve - the reason we have them is that when education was nationalised here, charitable faith schools were brought into the system.

Faith schools often perform 'well' in the sense that they have better performing students - but then they have informal forms of selection which pick out more kids wiith more supportive parents. Children in care don't get a look in for example. Emmanuel College in Gateshead - which is one of Blairs 'City Acadamies' takes an unusually low number of children with 'special learning needs' - and then doesn't look after them well - go check their Ofsted report. These 'Acadamies' also get extra state funding that other schools don't get - the Audit Commision doesn't think they offer value for money even when they perform 'well'.

Blair takes a simplistic view of this and wants to expand the number of state supported faith schools. This will mean dividing kids by religion at a young age - putting schools in the hands of all sorts of faith groups and private individuals and 'charities' - and leaving the 'leftovers' and the children that need the most help to be taught in underfunded 'bog standard' schools.

I think he's going to come a cropper with this one.

The best resources I have found are on the British Humanist Society site here:

< http://www.humanism.org.uk/site....le=1915 >

Lord May - the retiring Chair of the Royal Society has had something to say on the matter:

< http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1653748,00.html >


... anyone else think that this subject deserves a thread of it's own?
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 22 2006,14:08

Stephen wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before I started primary school my mother had taught me to read. The result? I ended up being sent to the back of the class with a book, while the other kids were being taught to read.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This happened to me too (in the U.S.), minus the book. I was briefly put into the slow readers group in first grade (age 6), despite already reading at at least fourth grade level. Since I'd had little contact with children my age when I started school, I was somewhat quiet around other kids at that age, and I think my teacher considered me slow. (I was already helping cousins three or four years older with their reading and vocabulary!) It took several months for my teacher to realize that I could read and to remedy the situation.

We didn't have the equivalent of the eleven plus in the U.S., but there was still a considerable amount of "tracking" here in the 1960s and 1970s. By that time, I was benefiting from being placed in an advanced track, but years later, I recall a very intelligent friend saying, "I lost the chance to take high school calculus in the seventh grade."

(For those outside the U.S.; Calculus, at least at the time, was usually taken by academic-track high school seniors, at roughly age 17. My friend had been tracked into a slightly slower math class at 12, and there was no way at all to catch up. None.)
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 22 2006,14:13

Steve .. I can't see that there is any threat to existing faith schools. I'd  like to see extra funding for alternatives in places where the the majority of schools are faith schools; such as Northern Ireland, and parts of Scotland for example; and where faith schooling re-inforces intolerance and sectarianism.

I am determinedly against the further expansion of faith schools across the country. I think that reasoning that it will lead to an increase in standards is bogus. As all faiths will have to be treated equally, then this will lead to an expansion in the number of Islamic schools in areas like the North-West where you come from for example - and do nothing for integration and the development of a 'British Identity'.

The American rejection of ID in schools doesn't come from an analysis of good or bad science as such - it comes from the realisation that true religious freedom requires that the state stays out of such matters. The justification at the moment for the expansion of faith schools is that they 'perform better' than ordinary schools. By extension of this reasoning then if 'faith schools' of a particular type start performing better than others (and this is the case of course) - the logically these schools should be favoured and expanded - whilst 'failing ones' are closed down.

Unnecessary 'entanglement' as the Americans put it.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,14:20

Dean,
My daughter started school in NI. NI has a much better standard of education than England.

Do not blame religious intolerance in NI on the schools. That lies firmly at the feet of of parents and peers.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 22 2006,15:59

Hi Steve..

I understand that the standard if education in NI is very good.

However it is slso the case that the faith-based school system is at least partly responsible for perpetuating the differences between two tribes. There are only 58  schools where you can be taught with children of other beliefs - the very first one opened in 1981.

There is now a 'Nortern Ireland Council for Integrated Education'. On i't website you can access independant research that shows that Children that attend 'Integrated' schools are more likely to occupy the middle ground in politics:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, at a time of ongoing sectarianism and frustrated politics, where many people seem programmed into the view that identity is something which we are receive at birth and is fixed for life, rather like our DNA.  This research confirms that young people who attend an integrated school are willing to challenge such stereotypes by being "more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated one". They are able to explore the whole meaning of identity, because integrated schools provide safe spaces within which they are supported and encouraged to challenge sectarian stereotypes and explore alternative models of citizenship.

Second, those findings of the wider study which were based upon a large sample of the adult population (Life and Times survey) suggest that "the positive effects of integrated schooling extend into later life". There is no coincidence in the fact that the title of the research links integrated schooling with political progress, as the report goes on to suggest that an integrated education nurtures the development of individuals who "have the potential to create a new common ground in N Ireland politics".

This willingness to engage with the other takes place on both sides of the so called "political divide" as evidenced by the reports findings that "Protestants who experience a formally integrated education occupy the middle ground in N Ireland politics"  while "in general Catholics who attended either a formally or informally integrated school were more likely than their segregated counterparts to abandon their traditional territorial allegiances".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.nicie.org/ >

I can't speak from experience like yourself - but don't you think that children in Northern Ireland could have an equally good or even better education if they weren't seperated according to the faith of their parents at age 5?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,22:53

Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 22 2006,21:59)
Hi Steve..

I understand that the standard if education in NI is very good.

However it is slso the case that the faith-based school system is at least partly responsible for perpetuating the differences between two tribes. There are only 58 schools where you can be taught with children of other beliefs - the very first one opened in 1981.

There is now a 'Nortern Ireland Council for Integrated Education'. On i't website you can access independant research that shows that Children that attend 'Integrated' schools are more likely to occupy the middle ground in politics:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, at a time of ongoing sectarianism and frustrated politics, where many people seem programmed into the view that identity is something which we are receive at birth and is fixed for life, rather like our DNA. This research confirms that young people who attend an integrated school are willing to challenge such stereotypes by being "more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated one". They are able to explore the whole meaning of identity, because integrated schools provide safe spaces within which they are supported and encouraged to challenge sectarian stereotypes and explore alternative models of citizenship.

Second, those findings of the wider study which were based upon a large sample of the adult population (Life and Times survey) suggest that "the positive effects of integrated schooling extend into later life". There is no coincidence in the fact that the title of the research links integrated schooling with political progress, as the report goes on to suggest that an integrated education nurtures the development of individuals who "have the potential to create a new common ground in N Ireland politics".

This willingness to engage with the other takes place on both sides of the so called "political divide" as evidenced by the reports findings that "Protestants who experience a formally integrated education occupy the middle ground in N Ireland politics" while "in general Catholics who attended either a formally or informally integrated school were more likely than their segregated counterparts to abandon their traditional territorial allegiances".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.nicie.org/ >

I can't speak from experience like yourself - but don't you think that children in Northern Ireland could have an equally good or even better education if they weren't seperated according to the faith of their parents at age 5?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would not doubt that. What background do you expect those children to have though? I suspect those children are all from non-bigotted families. Anyway, I have no real desire to defend religious segregation (and especially in NI).

My original point on faith schools was that I would not like to see them banned.

My argument against banning faith schools is:
1. Some of the best schools in the UK are faith based.
2. Banning could cause school closures.
3. It will most likely creat a lot of unnecesary indignation from parents.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 23 2006,08:46

guthrie,
I did not read a single paragraph in your post that I would dissagree with.

State schools seem to be getting increasingly handicapped by government interference. It would seem very difficult for a teacher/head to deal with disruptive pupils now. Individual "rights" have been promoted in a ridiculous way. Problem students seem to have more rights than those that wish to study.

Why should it be so difficult to exclude a student who constantly disrupts a class of 30+?
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 23 2006,11:20

A good question.  I personally dont use ideas like "rights" very often.  The problem when talking about rights is one of balance as usual, and also as usual, any group of people who are not properly overseen with appropriate checks and balances frequently get it wrong.  

From my point of view, it is a combination of:

1) Nowhere else to put disruptive child.
2) Need to meet gvt targets, which whilst by themselves seem quite good, overall have a deleterious effect.
3) Their parents will possibly kick up a fuss, and you probably have a rought idea how many parents believe their little angels can do no wrong.  
4) Poor headteachering.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 23 2006,12:39

LOL @ point 3.
Yeah, I have met parents like that. I consider it totally irresponsible to believe your child can do no wrong.

It would appear to be a growing trend. Parents who defend their child no matter what they have done.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 23 2006,14:09

I'm working in a voluntary capacity with eight year -olds in a primary school.

It's in a difficult area - and some of these kids have truly lousy parents. These kids tend to be hard work - but why should they be punished twice for something that they can do nothing about?

Faith schools drop kids like this at the drop of a hat  - a nice simple way to push up their score compared to other schools (I believe there was a report published just today that backs this up  ah.. found it..
< Kelly suppresses report >).
Other schools then have to take them in. I think that state school should do their best by all nations children - even if it it means working harder on the ones that are showing problems.

Otherwise by the time these kids get to be teenagers, they're even worse trouble; and after that - unemployment crime, drugs - it would have been cheaper to give the kids a decent schooling and some opportunities in the first place.
I've worked with enough unemployed illiterate and inumerate teenagers to know what sink schools are expected to turn out. Blair wants to let them drop even further behind to appease the middle classes.

Oh .. and the Cat Stevens info...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Call for madrassas inside state schools, TES, 14/10/05
Muslim experts suggest ways to tackle alienation behind London bombings
Madrassas, the religious schools linked to mosques, should have the option of moving to the site of their local state schools, an education taskforce set up by Tony Blair following the London bombings has said.
The group of Muslim academics and educationists, which includes Yusuf Islam, formally pop star Cat Stevens, handed in its report to Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, last week.
Proposals included the creation of a Muslim educational research centre, a national ethnic achievement programme and shaking up the UK's Islamic schools or madrassas...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from the < British Humanist Society Schools info page >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 23 2006,14:23

Dean,
I am not wholly unsympathetic to your views. However resources are limited.

If you was teaching a class of 35 students, one student was totally disrupting the class. What would you recommend?
Posted by: mynym on Jan. 24 2006,10:48

<i>I can’t seem to find any of this. Why should it be taught with zero support? Or am I just missing the support? Please note, by the by, that I’m not asking for a refutation of evolution.</i>

No matter, those who go as craaazy about "evolution" as the writers here seem to would also be against refutation of any <i>type</i> being taught anyway.  And how would one set about refuting an amorphous term that can mean anything from  a specific and observed change in the size of the beaks of birds to all "change" that has ever taken place in the Cosmos?  You may as well stick your hand in a mud puddle and claim to have refuted the water that flows around it.  Interesting how scientific "evolution" is though, given that the term covers so much hypothetical goo that can never be refuted and so many hypotheses that were never refined and defined into sound theories to be tested in the first place.  How do you refute something that cannot rise to the level of being objectively wrong in the first place?
Posted by: steve s on Jan. 24 2006,10:49

If you want to discuss the urge to censor, we'd love to hear why the ID blog Uncommon Descent banned more people last Friday (26 that we know of) than Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes, combined, has banned in nearly 2 years of operation (11).
Posted by: mynym on Jan. 24 2006,10:49

<blockquote>Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha has long criticized the Legislature for allowing prayers to be offered on the floor and makes a point of not being present when the morning prayers are given.

   He stormed onto the floor after Swartley was done and in a raised voice called the pastor’s comments outrageous and out of line.

   “The day has been poisoned for me,” said Chambers, who added that he had never been as enraged and furious in the Legislature, and that “donkeys” such as Swartley should be yanked from the podium in the future.</blockquote>

It is interesting to contrast the lack of civility, immediate attempts at censorship of speech and the tendency to be ruled by their own feelings that those with the urge to merge tend to as compared to the Founders.  E.g.<blockquote>On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin delivered a powerful speech to the Constitutional Convention, which was embroiled in a bitter debate over how each state was to be represented in the new government. [...] Being the senior member of the convention at 81 years of age, he commanded the respect of all present, and, as recorded in James Madison's detailed records, he rose to speak in this moment of crisis:Mr. President:
The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.

We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

In the beginning of the Contest with C. Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.
To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:
We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages.

And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.</blockquote>(America's God and Country
By William J. Federer :246-249)

It's interesting to compare that to the tendencies of those stupid and ignorant enough to believe in the various Darwinian creation myths that have been advanced over time.  E.g., in the eugenics movement those who opposed "science" were labelled as "ape clergy" and so on.  What Darwinists seem to mean when they call other people animals who have no right to speak and should be "should be yanked from the podium" is rather queer, given that they're typically the same mental retards that support "animal rights."  E.g. Richard Dawkins.

Note the talk of "poison," notice how those with the urge to merge speak in language based on immanence that tends to bleed into a medicalized cure. “The day has been poisoned for me,” said Chambers.

So he gives himself away, yet writers on the Panda's Thumb apparently like him.  No surpise, as they are like him.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 24 2006,10:49

I think I see your tragic flaw, Larry.

How about looking into positive arguments for your position instead of passively waiting for things to attack?  Could it be because that might lead to actual learning--obviously going against some sort of IDist creed.  Instead of lurking around "pro-evolution websites" looking for any scrap of information you can find, perhaps you should be doing some research to advance your cause.
Posted by: limpidense on Jan. 24 2006,11:11

What a grouchy, unpleasant fellow you are, mynym!  How perfectly you exemplify EVERYTHING not only wrong, but unpleasant, about creationists (under whatever cover name).

 And, as a bonus, you exemplify everything that is right about this group of disagreeable, cowardly "Homo Merkin": nothing.

 What a trial it gets to be, having to scroll past all these lonesome, grumpy jerks on this thread!  Of course, the only "positive" and non-mental-masturbatory goal of such vain folk as mynym, DH, CC, and Larry (how long the list of utterly vacuous, twisted trolls now is!) is to make reading PT so unpleasant as to drive people away from the site.
Posted by: KL on Jan. 24 2006,11:14

Regarding comment 75444:

Jesus, mynym!!! What are you smoking? Larry makes WAY more sense than you. Do you have any training or education in the sciences? My teenage son is more coherent than this on his worst day.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 24 2006,11:14

Larry seems to answer the hard questions the same way Dembski does: by cherry-picking those complaints easiest to misrepresent, and doing that while ignoring all the rest.

And finally, here is mynym who seems to think if he mislabels evidence "leftist politics", then he doesn't need to ever notice the stuff.

Any more evasion and distortion and maybe I'll convert to creationism myself. That's mighty compelling.
Posted by: mynym on Jan. 24 2006,11:17

<i>Mynym can be safely ignored, at least on the Internet.</i>

Then please adhere to your own words, since it seems that you have nothing to say about the "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism anyway.

<i>Wow, mynym, your posts get less coherent every day. I guess their total lack of any coherent content or structure makes them “irefutable,” eh?</i>

Only in your own imagination...

<i>You need some lessons in clear writing from the LaRouchies and flat-earthers. Either that, or more meds…</i>

I suspect that you would drug people if you could if that was the way the Herd was running these days given the totalitarianism typical to those grounded in scientism and the way that they seek physical solutions to metaphysical problems.  

Too bad you live in America, huh?  A nation founded on and defined by ideas rather than a physical people, who would have <i>thought</i> it...

<i>What a grouchy, unpleasant fellow you are, mynym! How perfectly you exemplify EVERYTHING not only wrong, but unpleasant, about creationists (under whatever cover name).</i>

If those with the urge to merge found my writing pleasant just as they seem to like the uncivilized and censorious politician above then I would be concerned that I was not making enough separations, discriminations and that <i>type</i> of thing.  It's good to see that is not the case.  Of course you didn't really say anything about the perversion of separation of church and state from the intentions of Founders like Franklin that leads into absurd situations like some federal judge trying to define "religion" and "science" for everyone, but that's to be expected.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 24 2006,11:19

Effeminates?

Dude, if you think we're that easily insulted, you're probably still riding the little bike with the training wheels.  Hint: the metal pipes that look like cow horns are to help you steer.  Woah!  Watch out for that tree!

Eesh, mynym, that must have really hurt!

<i>(And for those who call us heartless, I sincerely hope the tree is okay...)</i>
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 24 2006,11:20

Effeminates?

Dude, if you think we're that easily insulted, you're probably still riding the little bike with the training wheels.  Hint: the metal pipes that look like cow horns are to help you steer.  Woah!  Watch out for that tree!

Eesh, mynym, that must have really hurt!

<i>(And for those who call us heartless, I sincerely hope the tree is okay...)</i>
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,12:54

Email Wesley Elsberry for it. I didn't ask him if I could redistribute it.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 24 2006,13:12

mynym says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe in evolution.  Why do you think that I don't?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF??? Uh, the extreme anti-science, anti-materialist flailing?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,13:17

Eminem was right in that censorship is generally bad. What he didn't know is that William Dembski's weblog censors people several hundred times more than our evolution blogs.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 24 2006,14:08

I'm gonna post this here; seems appropriate.

I'm worn out with "troll wars".  

I'm tired of arguing science with folks that have no clue what science is.  it's like trying to define the color "red" to someone who is colorblind.

I'm even tired of seeing folks argue with folks that have no clue what science is.

It seems after the Kitzmiller case, that PT has become inundated with trolls, and the entertainment value of them has severely diminished.

Some might find a barrel of monkeys more fun, and more power to you, but IMO, ya see one monkey fling crap on the walls, ya seen 'em all.

In any case, I'm just announcing that I'm taking a vacation from PT.

Hopefully after a few weeks or so, folks will get tired of feeding the trolls, and enough of them will die of starvation that PT goes back to some semblance of normality.

In the meantime, I'm going into hibernation, see you all in the Spring!

cheers

p.s.  keep pushin that thread to 1000 posts!
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 25 2006,11:27

From Carol's very next post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The couple in the Genesis named Adam and Eve are not the first humans and the Bible does not even imply that they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have never read the original Hebrew Bible. Now I see how little I really knew about how wrong the modern Christian versions were. Here I thought that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on Jan. 25 2006,12:03

AC,

The couple in the Genesis named Adam and Eve are not the first humans and the Bible does not even imply that they are. They are noteworthy because God chooses to overtly interact with them and have a record of those interactions recorded for posterity in the Bible. There also are other theological interpretations we need not get into here. But this happens many other times in the Bible. For example, God chooses, seemingly out of the blue, to interact with Abraham, and no explicit reason is provided to justify this choice.

Hope this helps. I am trying not to wander too far off topic here.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2006,12:04

Can you give us your translations carol?
Genesis 19:5-8 and Deuteronomy 33:11
You see, those verses are among a few from the old testament that seem like they would point to a provincial god, one that does, in fact contradict scientific findings. I can explain further but I might just have a bad translation so I am waiting for a good one first.

Wow, an entire religion founded on incorrect data. Like cloning human stem cells.
Posted by: JONBOY on Jan. 25 2006,12:30

I am amazed how Carol's logic allows her to defend a book that portrays women in the context that it does.
Women are shown to be 2nd class,valued less than a man, and in Gods eyes women are the possessions of men,in fact women and girls don't really count as persons in "The Lords Eyes" Women are the guilty party in all errors, men are but innocent victims.
There are hundreds of examples of this in the bible and I'm sure Carol will have a apologetic answer for all of them. Oh yes I can quote book and verse to most of them.
Posted by: David K on Jan. 25 2006,13:34

To the Admins, WHY WAS MY POST DELETED? There are plenty of other posts on this page regarding the Bible, but mine gets deleted? Why the selective deletions? Please don't turn this site into Uncommon Descent.

Unbelievable.
Posted by: David K on Jan. 25 2006,13:34

Okay, so I see my post was moved to the bathroom wall. Well, I wanted to tell Carol that Chapter 2 of Genesis contradicts Chapter 1 (Adam as first human vs. previous humans, respectively). But I really don't feel like getting too much into it. I'm no expert on the subject.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 25 2006,13:37

<quote>I am trying not to wander too far off topic here.</quote>We might, of course, note that this thread is *supposed* to be about the Hindu effort to teach their doctrine as science. Carol's bible-babble is irrelevant. I guess Landa doesn't have the One True Version of Hindu texts, so Carol feels the need to change the subject to a book she CAN sell.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 25 2006,17:57

Quote (Guest @ Jan. 25 2006,19:37)
<quote>I am trying not to wander too far off topic here.</quote>We might, of course, note that this thread is *supposed* to be about the Hindu effort to teach their doctrine as science. Carol's bible-babble is irrelevant. I guess Landa doesn't have the One True Version of Hindu texts, so Carol feels the need to change the subject to a book she CAN sell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have the distinct impression that Carol has no interest whatsoever in any religious text other than the Old Testament. So it's not too surprising she should veer off topic if we're discussing the beliefs of Hindus.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on Jan. 26 2006,03:04

David K,

You pose some excellent questions, some of which you can find answers to in previous postings on this thread.

To elaborate a bit further, you need to realize that Hebrew is a beautiful language (I speak from experience with fluency in 7 languages) in which words have multiple meanings, borrowed meanings and convergent meanings. Some single words in Hebrew require 8 or 9 words in English to be satisfactorally translated.

The Hebrew AUDUM (I transliterate on purpose so you don't automatically think "Adam", the name of an individual, when you see that word) has three different meanings throughout the Bible and even in modern Hebrew. The word can be used to mean (1) human, humanity or humankind, as a species, (2) man, as opposed to female, and (3) Adam, the name of any individual by the name. In Genesis the word is employed in all three ways, depending on the context. It is actually easy to ascertain which meaning is intended from the context.

In verses 26 and 27 of chapter one, quoted above, the context makes it absolutely clear that AUDUM there refers to "human". There can be no reasonable doubt about it.

So why are some popular English translations wrong? For a combination of reasons. Ignorance, preconceived notions, mischief making, sloppiness, and agendas to be acted upon.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Jan. 26 2006,07:18

For people who don't like the (oh so lenient) moderation of PT please remember that the Antievolution.org discussion board allows the general public to open threads of their own.  And this on someone else's dime.  Carol you are only as welcome here as you allow yourself to be.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 27 2006,08:05

Oh, come on.  You know Carol.  If you want to know what she thinks, buy the book.  You know the one.  The one, single, holy, divinely inspired, has no errors, doesn't conflict with science, says the sun went round the earth backward, "kill every man, woman, child, and animal on that land because I'm giving it to my chosen people", translated by a fella she just happens to be doing business for book.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on Jan. 27 2006,17:25

Stephen,

  "I am still a bit angry, both with myself and the ID movement, because I originally fell for their hoax."

I would suggest that you not be too hard on yourself there.

First, the ID people really believe in ID. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did not set out to deceive anyone.

Second, while their theory has no scientific basis, it could very well be vaild in the sense that it happened that way. In other words, the universe and life could very well be intelligently designed, whether we can substantiate that assertion or not. There is nothing in science that contradicts ID.

Third, scientific work almost always involves "wasting" time on theories that turn out to be wrong, going down blind alleys and chasing dead ends, sometimes for years (even decades). That is the nature of the beast. So you had a theory and then reconsidered. So what? It's all in a days work of a scientist.
Posted by: Lenny's Pizza Guy on Jan. 27 2006,17:26

<i>Oooh!</i>

Carol and Lenny,
sitting in a tree...!

<i>(Dang!  There goes tonight's shot at a tip!)</i>
Posted by: Carol Clouser on Jan. 27 2006,17:26

Lenny,

Very fascinating. Thanks for the forthright response.

My exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism has not benefited from the "inside sources" you have had, but from symposia conducted by westernized "experts" that always left me with the feeling that my grasp is less than complete.

I now wonder why that committee of rabbis that went to India to investigate Hinduism came back with the conclusion that it constitutes idol worship in the biblical sense, which implies that the adherents view their gods as having independent power to act. Perhaps they interviewed only members of those sects you speak of that do believe this. In that case they did a shoddy job.

I am amazed my last post was not bounced before you got a chance to see it.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Jan. 27 2006,17:26

<quote>My exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism has not benefited from the “inside sources” you have had, but from symposia conducted by westernized “experts” that always left me with the feeling that my grasp is less than complete.</quote>


Learning about a thing by hearing what others say about that thing, is never a good thing.

Sort of like learning about Judaism by asking the Klan about it.



<quote>I now wonder why that committee of rabbis that went to India to investigate Hinduism came back with the conclusion that it constitutes idol worship in the biblical sense, </quote>



Well, what the #### did anyone EXPECT they would do --- declare that Judaism and Hinduism were wonderfully compatible with each other?


<quote>which implies that the adherents view their gods as having independent power to act. Perhaps they interviewed only members of those sects you speak of that do believe this.</quote>



Pure statistics makes that exceedingly unlikely.


<quote>In that case they did a shoddy job.</quote>


They saw what they wanted to see. Religions have a funny way of doing that.  (shrug)
Posted by: Carol Clouser on Jan. 28 2006,14:33

What is the point of displaying responses to posts that have been bounced? How is anyone reading these responses supposed to put them in context, other than going back forth between here and the bathroom wall? This is ridiculous!

I have had it with this thread and with PZ and probably with PT.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 03 2006,10:38

This is just a really cool site for anyone who may not have found one like it.
< http://www.panoramas.dk/ >
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2006,16:56

The final question on Jeopardy! tonight was what famous ship sailed from Plymouth, England in 1831 to survey the coast of South America. Two of the three contestants got it.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 07 2006,15:10

Question on tonight's Jeopardy!: "You're genome is over 95% identical with this animal".
(The contestant missed it, in spite of knowing that "imp" would be somewhere in the response.)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 09 2006,07:16

< DISCOVERS SKELETONS OF THE OLDEST TYRANNOSAUR >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A team of scientists led by James M. Clark, Ronald B. Weintraub Associate Professor of Biology at The George Washington University, and Xu Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in Beijing, have discovered a new genus and species of dinosaur that is the oldest known and most primitive tyrannosauroid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Henry
Posted by: island on Feb. 09 2006,15:00

<I>Your being so ready and willing to dispose of certain questions, such as “why are we here” by just declaring “we do not know” and merrily walk away from the issue, in contrast to other questions where theories are called upon to explain phenomena, betrays the artifical restriction on science I spoke of.

If Darwin would have applied the same attitude to the issue of the origin of the species, he would have just declared “they are just here” and “we do not know” and moved on to other things. The point of science is not to walk away from issues by shrugging our shoulders and declaring that we just do not know.

So why the selective application of this approach on the part the scientific community? I claim it is due to the big elephant lurking behind certain issues, a monster many prefer not to face.</I>

That's exactly correct and was the whole point of Lynn Margulis hard line against "neodarwinians".  You don't call your peers "neodarwinian bullies" as the honered guest speaker at the last evoloutionary conference simply because you're having a normal dispute with them.  Lynn's was a direct shot at the form of fanaticism vs antifanaticism that leads to the willful denial of evidence via their own brand of how they are willing to interpret evidence.

Notice that PvM has now resorted to appeals to comparitively lame authority, trying to dig up lame dirt, rather than to admit that I've made a single valid point, which I can seriously back-up with hard physics that he can't begin to understand, so he avoids it like the plague.

This is highly common to the whole neodarwinistic mentality that causes the judge in dover to admit that there may be a scientific point that IDists are not motivated to make.  It's the same mentality that causes them to contuously and falsely leap to assume and call me, an atheist, a creationist.

This cannot happen without a whole bunch of pre-conceived prejudice behind it, because I never argue for ID, nor for supernatural entities.  Einstein and others have had a very similar purposefullly structured worldview as mine from the physics of relativity as applied to the structuring of the observed universe without uncertainty.  It is not at all out of the realm of science, but the willful denial of evidence for it is highly prevelant within the evobiolgy community.

I interpret from the physics what Leonard Susskind sees as a scientist when he says that "the appearance of design is undeniable"... the difference being that I know that it can't be about ID if the landscape fails.

It's a valid scientific interpretation, whether PvM or anybody else here wants to admit it, or not, and so I don't really care what happens here, since they continue to typically ignore the valid points, while attacking only perceived weaknesses.

How greenScience is that?... lol
Posted by: island on Feb. 09 2006,15:10

<BLOCKQUOTE>Comment #78693
Posted by PvM on February 9, 2006 09:05 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'ulr' </BLOCKQUOTE>

PvM, do try to use the proper tags when you're trying to backat me... lol
Posted by: island on Feb. 09 2006,15:37

</i>That you lack the math and science to really explore these issues came as a surprise to me.</i>

Bring it, punk, I know enough about both to show you up for the idiot that you have proven yourself to be by deleting relevant information that shows why.
Posted by: tiredofthesos on Feb. 09 2006,17:57

My, my!  That island!
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 10 2006,08:39

This is interesting:
< Researchers Assemble Second Non-Human Primate Genome >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[...]A multi-center team has deposited the draft genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey into free public databases for use by the worldwide research community, [...]
Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human (Homo sapiens) and more than 98 percent with the chimpanzee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Henry
Posted by: whoever on Feb. 11 2006,13:42

fyi

So much for open forums.  I tried to go read After The Bar Closes and found my IP address blocked after commenting here and on austringer.net.

Maybe when you boys get serious about admitting your mistakes you can admit what a mistake it is to call your forums open.  I'm sure you know what I mean about that Ed.

In the meantime I have more IP addresses in more domains than Carter has little liver pills so it's no skin off my nose.

ttfn
Posted by: carol clouser on Feb. 11 2006,16:12

PvM,

If the campaign to establish the compatibility of science and religion is to be predicated on the idea that Genesis is meant to be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, it will achieve pitifully little and certainly not help the cause of science. Such an approach is rightly viewed by millions as based on the evisceration of the words of the Bible of any real meaning and will be rejected. So there is no reason for science to support such an approach.

What the scientific community ought to be supporting is establishing the compatibility of science and religion EVEN IF THE BIBLE IS INTERPRETED LITERALLY. As I have reported here on many occasions, such an approach has successfully been accomplished by various recent scholars, such as Judah Landa's popular IN THE BEGINNING OF, among others.

Now, that is an approach that can and will actually make a difference.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 11 2006,18:46

What about where the Bible says the sun goes around the earth?
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 12 2006,09:40

By the way, Andy H (i.e. Larry and several other aliases).  Why, given your <i>obvious</i> concern over ethical issues, do you continue to violate the ethics of the PT board and dishonestly post as several people?

Don't hypocrisy and lying bother you?

Don't you realize that such behavior means that no one is likely to take <i>anything</i> you say seriously?

I truly am curious why you exhibit this peculiar and dishonest behavior.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 13 2006,04:51

What happened to half of the bathroom wall? It used to have 8 pages (and the index still claims it does), but now only four of those pages contain notes?

Henry
Posted by: Moderator on Feb. 13 2006,05:08

There's an ikonBoard bug that hoses topics once a very long text message is entered. I've switched DB managers this morning so that I have a chance to intervene via the DB interface, but to restore the currently missing messages would take more work than I can budget time for at the moment.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 13 2006,05:11

Those pesky bugs will evolve, won't they?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 13 2006,07:20

Re "very long text message"

Ah - that would have been that long article that somebody posted in German. Least I think it was German. No clue what it said, though.  :D

Henry
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 13 2006,08:22

Quote (Guest @ Feb. 11 2006,22:12)
If the campaign to establish the compatibility of science and religion is to be predicated on the idea that Genesis is meant to be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, it will achieve pitifully little and certainly not help the cause of science. Such an approach is rightly viewed by millions as based on the evisceration of the words of the Bible of any real meaning and will be rejected. So there is no reason for science to support such an approach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought the campaign was about establishing the compatibility of religion and reality - for the benefit of religion.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 13 2006,08:46

Why do fundamentalists read the KJV bible?

If you really thought that the bible was the absolute text of truth....wouldnt it make the most sense to learn Hebrew...and read it for yourself?

If your only going to listen to other people's interpertation of the bible....shouldnt you just avoid reading it all together and only discuss it with biblical scholars?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 13 2006,09:40

Re "Why do fundamentalists read the KJV bible?"

Maybe they haven't yet got the word on the, um, social preferences of the guy what wrote it?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 21 2006,05:57

I'm wondering if the attempted movement of off-topic posts to here is sending them to the wrong place - to < here instead. >

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 21 2006,08:56

Yes, the database transfer seems to have re-indexed the topics. I've edited the plugin to reflect the new index.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on Feb. 24 2006,02:59

<quote>Check out these Asian-on-white (Asian guys fucking white girls) porn sites.</quote>

ah yes, we must always be reminded that indeed, <b>sex pays off</b> - especially if you host it on the internet.

*sigh*
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 24 2006,03:00

WHat the heck? She's not even a real asian! Shes an italian with her eyes made up like a japanese chick.
Sheesh, you made me risk a virus for that?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 24 2006,09:49

Sounds like somebody was dis-oriented? :p
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 24 2006,09:56

LOL :D
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 27 2006,08:21

I see the January feedback has been posted on T.O.
Posted by: Bruce Thompson GQ on Feb. 28 2006,13:30

Does anyone know what happened to the Waterloo post?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2006,04:25

Comments from one of the PT threads re inaccessibility of AtBC (and the whole Antievolution BB, actually) last night. I couldn't get on from home; won't know til tonight if that's still the case. I can get on from work today (obviously).

Henry

==========
Comment #83041

Posted by BWE on March 1, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Although I cant log in right now for some reason, I started a thread over at After the Bar Closes called How much fun is too much fun aimed at finding the balance, the fine line between acceptable laughing at the fundies expense and doing what you are describing here.

Realizing that there is no way we are going to exercise restraint when so much good sport is on the table, I was attempting to ascertain what kinds of comments were over the top and which were, in the interest of good fun, marginally acceptable.

BTW, why cant I log in to AtBC?

==========
Comment #83079

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 12:09 AM (e)

Re BTW, why cant I log in to AtBC?

Oh, good, then it isnt just me.

Henry

==========
Comment #83105

Posted by CJ O'Brien on March 2, 2006 02:37 AM (e)

Re BTW, why cant I log in to AtBC?
Oh, good, then it isnt just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldnt either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so Im guessing theres a few who cant get on.

==========
Comment #83193

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 10:09 AM (e)

Re Re BTW, why cant I log in to AtBC?
Oh, good, then it isnt just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldnt either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so Im guessing theres a few who cant get on.

It was from home that I couldnt get on AtBC last night. Wont know till tonight if thats changed or not. The screen that came up said I didt have permission to use this board, and the logon button just led back to the same screen. The register button did bring up the registration screen, but it just wound up telling me my ID was already in use. (Duh.)

Henry

============
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 02 2006,11:15

Testing.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2006,15:14

It's working tonight.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 02 2006,19:29

test.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2006,22:40

Test? What test? There's a test? I didn't study! Oh no now I'm going to fail my Internet Message Board 101. Oh woe is me etc.
Posted by: beervolcano on Mar. 03 2006,11:20

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/880 >


This is funny.

If you ever felt the need to play the role of the Intelligent Designer here is the game for you!


There is only one Intelligent Designer. He is the alpha the omega...


No really, I've always wanted a detailed model of how intelligent design is supposed to be carried out by the intelligent designer. O wait, am I supposed to capitalize it?

So seriously, I guess since this is on DaveScot's blog, this must really be the way ID people envision the intelligent designer, peace be upon Him, doing His work.

Someone please enlighten me.
Posted by: beervolcano on Mar. 03 2006,11:43

Yet another example of DaveScot's hilarity.

Apparently DaveScot has allowed William Demski to make this absurd post on his blog.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
March 3, 2006
Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID: www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.html
Filed under: Intelligent Design William Dembski @ 8:06 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The comments are really where it's at.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  1.

     The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better.

     Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law.

     All in all, a wonderful link!

     Salvador

     Comment by scordova March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 am
  2.

     Wow! Great example of the beauty of simplicity!

     Comment by jacktone March 3, 2006 @ 9:22 am
  3.

     According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

     I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

     Comment by ftrp11 March 3, 2006 @ 11:29 am
  4.

     Pretty impressive. Usually I dont care for that argument, but he presented it well.

     Comment by Teddy March 3, 2006 @ 11:52 am
  5.

     Its presented well, but it is a fallacious tautology he presents. Here is a simple counter-example: A highly improbable event would be for energetic water molecules to start sticking to each other in an ordered, symmetric way. Yet, it is made more probable by simply reducing the temperature of the system. (Frost in your fridge.) Heat leaving the boundry of this open system is how this is possible. How does his tautology explain such an event?

     By the way: what is the 4th Law of Thermo?

     Comment by danb March 3, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
  6.

     So it sounds like his argument has little to do with thermodynamics, but is rather just a restatement of ID beliefsthat NS+RM is extremely unlikely to have produced the complexity and diversity we see. There certainly doesnt seem to be a claim that any physical laws are violated.

     Comment by physicist March 3, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
  7.

     ftrp11 wrote:
     According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law.
     This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct.
     That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theorythe origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin.

     Bingo, ftrp11!
     Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

     Comment by Red Reader March 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
  8.

     ftrp11 wrote:

     I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

     What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.

     Comment by Eric Anderson March 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

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


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 03 2006,11:44

Re "There is only one Intelligent Designer. He is the alpha the omega..."

The Designer was Greek?

Re "Apparently DaveScot has allowed William Demski"

Huh? Am I confused as to the chain of command over there? :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 09 2006,11:35

<quote>How come we have not heard from people who believed that the Nazis mistakenly identified them as Jews ?</quote>

Because the Nazis would have <i>killed</i> them, you stupid shit.

C'mon, is it too much effort for you to think before you talk <i>just once</i>???
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 09 2006,11:37

<quote>And it has never been explained how the Nazis were supposedly able to reliably distinguish Jews from non-Jews. </quote>

Again, try and think before you speak, you stupid little nonentity.

If you read a history book ot two that wasn't written by David Irving, you would realize it was quite easy for the German Army to find the Jews in Europe. The Jews had distinctive names, they tended to live in their own ghettos and neighborhoods, they often held different occupations from everyone else, and they went to temple. In most of Europe, especially eastern Europe, they were still <b>very segregated</b>. Moreover, the local gentiles all knew who and where the Jews were (since they had lived near them for centuries), there was pervasive antisemitism, and so in many countries, the local gentiles enthusiastically handed the Jews over to the Nazis.

This is all documented VERY WELL. If you read history books about WW2 that weren't written by other lying antisemitic boneheads like yourself, you would <b>know</b> this.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 09 2006,12:22

Might anyone know why Larry's Holocaust revisionism and other such nonsense is staying at PT, despite his endless violations of PT's sockpuppet rules, while my responses to his foolishness are getting bounced to the Bathroom Wall?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 09 2006,13:06

Since I'm not doing that bouncing, I don't know.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 09 2006,16:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2006,19:06)
Since I'm not doing that bouncing, I don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume it was Steve Reuland, since he began the thread, tho he offered no explanation.
Posted by: k.e. on Mar. 10 2006,06:08

So Larry since you would seem not to have enough intelligence to understand science

instead of blinding us with better science  

are just going to baffle us with BS?

Humans descended from angels? Not in your case Larry.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,06:32

By the way, I <url href="http://craptaculus.com/eac/jesus.htm">found Jesus</url>.

You don't really want to ban Andy. Haven't you all noticed that this is all for "amusement purposes only" and should not be played for investment purposes? Andy provides a good whipping boy and sometimes even makes us laugh. And dog only knows, some of us desperately need a good laugh. Especially if it can be at someone else's expense. I'm not convinced Andy is really larry. I mean, I don't think he <i>knows</i> he's Larry.

I'll leave that to all you to comment on.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,06:49

So the pattern seems to be that Andy/Larry goes unbanned and undisemvowelled no matter what he does (no matter how far off topic he goes, or how many fake names he uses), but anyone responding to him gets bounced here. Am I the only one who finds this incomprehensible?
Posted by: AD on Mar. 10 2006,07:01

<quote>You don’t really want to ban Andy. Haven’t you all noticed that this is all for “amusement purposes only” and should not be played for investment purposes? Andy provides a good whipping boy and sometimes even makes us laugh. And dog only knows, some of us desperately need a good laugh. Especially if it can be at someone else’s expense. I’m not convinced Andy is really larry. I mean, I don’t think he knows he’s Larry.</quote>

I think it would depend on what the intent of the comment section of the blog is.  If it's just a place for people to informally bullshit about things vaguely related to the original post, then yes, there's really no reason to ban him.

If we're attempting to have even somewhat formal academic commentary or related on-topic debate, however, then there's a very strong reason to ban him.  In those settings, cranks who do not support themselves are ultimately unwelcome.  

I think it's a question of which one this is...
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,07:14

OK, I understand. But really, Andy/whoever does perform a function sometimes. He spits out the party line and, when he's on topic, gives those who wish to a chance to point out how ignorant the party line is. Readers who don't comment who might be on the fence can see who the people are they might side with. I personally think that keeping a lighthearted attitude towards Andy/farflungdung/whoever helps the whole PT community by illustrating the whole us/them point. I know that us/them is the black and the white but seriously, how long can you stay in the area occupied by the slash?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,07:37

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 10 2006,13:14)
OK, I understand. But really, Andy/whoever does perform a function sometimes. He spits out the party line and, when he's on topic, gives those who wish to a chance to point out how ignorant the party line is. Readers who don't comment who might be on the fence can see who the people are they might side with. I personally think that keeping a lighthearted attitude towards Andy/farflungdung/whoever helps the whole PT community by illustrating the whole us/them point. I know that us/them is the black and the white but seriously, how long can you stay in the area occupied by the slash?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see your point, but that doesn't explain bouncing everyone who responds to him. Is this Steve Reuland doing this again?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 10 2006,08:43

Re "but anyone responding to him gets bounced here. Am I the only one who finds this incomprehensible?"

Nope. I've expressed pretty much the same thought when the idea came up once before.

Henry
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,09:45

Are you calling me a nut case?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 10 2006,10:13

Do I recall correctly that the color of the user id's in this thread indicates if it was posted here directly, or got moved here after being posted someplace that's else?

Henry
Posted by: limpidense on Mar. 10 2006,10:31

A man who vies with Dembski for the description of worst human being -- Dave Scott could not really be human, after all -- involved with creationism.  Their styles are so different, though, it is hard to directly compare the vileness with which they somehow make their "undead-ing" (such people don't really earn a "living.")

 I never wish even the worst person ill, but should I hear that this man has died without confession, it will provide the solace of knowing that death comes even to the worst of us.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,10:56

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2006,16:13)
Do I recall correctly that the color of the user id's in this thread indicates if it was posted here directly, or got moved here after being posted someplace that's else?

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


I see the flow of refugees continues...

Yes, if the name is in red, that means someone bounced it here from PT.

And yes, it is Reuland. He's zapping people left and right and leaving Larry untouched. Amazing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,10:56

<quote>I would have thought that moving a whole bunch of comments to the Bathroom Wall would have made it obvious not to feed the troll, but some of you are amazingly thick-headed. One stupid comment does not ruin a thread. One stupid comment combined with 8 people who just can’t help but respond ruins a thread. Please, quit ruining my threads.</quote>

Why are you punishing the people who <b>respond</b> to the trolls but not banishing/disemvowelling the trolls themselves? Delete/bounce Larry, the problem goes away. Do it this way, the problem lasts forever.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,11:05

Quote (Guest @ Mar. 10 2006,16:56)
<quote>I would have thought that moving a whole bunch of comments to the Bathroom Wall would have made it obvious not to feed the troll, but some of you are amazingly thick-headed. One stupid comment does not ruin a thread. One stupid comment combined with 8 people who just can't help but respond ruins a thread. Please, quit ruining my threads.</quote>

Why are you punishing the people who <b>respond</b> to the trolls but not banishing/disemvowelling the trolls themselves? Delete/bounce Larry, the problem goes away. Do it this way, the problem lasts forever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now this is interesting. Like 2 minutes after I posted that at PT, it appears here, but at the moment it's still in the PT thread -- but NOT in the list of 'recent comments'. Is it one of those deals where only I can read my posting?

Now I know how all those people who try and post at UD feel.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 10 2006,11:09

It turns out that Steve is applying the same rules that go for this BB:



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

# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.
# MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

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



Myself, I'd bounce all the inappropriate messages, but that's up to each thread owner.

Also, PT is done via Movable Type. MT generates static pages, so things have to be "rebuilt". This can lead to some odd behavior on the leading edge of current stuff.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,11:16

:09-->
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2006,17:09)
It turns out that Steve is applying the same rules that go for this BB:



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

# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.
# MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

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



Myself, I'd bounce all the inappropriate messages, but that's up to each thread owner.

Also, PT is done via Movable Type. MT generates static pages, so things have to be "rebuilt". This can lead to some odd behavior on the leading edge of current stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's also a rule saying that sockpuppeting will get you banned, but that rule is ignored.

I see Nick Matzke is also bouncing people here as well. Quite the craze there this week.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,11:24

Okay, the other shoe dropped, my post is now totally gone from Steve's thread, but there's a new long post by AD taking Steve to task for how he's handling it. Be interesting to see if Steve makes that posting disappear too.

I'm never posting anything on one his threads again, for one thing.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,12:41

I had some good, on topic posts and they are neither here nor there. But, Arden, make it a game. See what you can get away with! THese musings on the subject are not limited to practicing research scientists. (Maybe you are one). They are reactions and thoughts on the subjects at hand as well as the global subject of the fundementalist attack on the "educated intelligent class of people". So if you want to get back at him, tease him, don't go away mad. Try to stay nominally on topic but look through the historical postings. If you took OT posts out many threads would have no posts at all. It is a broad topic and peevish behavior is to be expected from anyone from time to time.

Too many thoughts! Sorry that was so rambling but I hope you got my point. ???
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 10 2006,16:28

There seem to be some conflicting ideas of what the comments on PT posts are there for. Most contributors think that the comments are for others to reflect upon the post and put in some substantive commentary, adding to what is there or bringing up serious considerations and critique of the content of the post.

On the other hand, we have a lot of non-contributors who seem to think of the PT comment capability just as a rather slow IRC chat room. This is certainly the case for the trolls. It would be unfortunate if many others are lured into troll-like behavior.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 10 2006,17:50

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 10 2006,18:41)
I had some good, on topic posts and they are neither here nor there. But, Arden, make it a game. See what you can get away with! THese musings on the subject are not limited to practicing research scientists. (Maybe you are one). They are reactions and thoughts on the subjects at hand as well as the global subject of the fundementalist attack on the "educated intelligent class of people". So if you want to get back at him, tease him, don't go away mad. Try to stay nominally on topic but look through the historical postings. If you took OT posts out many threads would have no posts at all. It is a broad topic and peevish behavior is to be expected from anyone from time to time.

Too many thoughts! Sorry that was so rambling but I hope you got my point. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I do get your point, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Check out SR's closing paragraph on the last message of the thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wouldnt surprise me if there are one or two reasonable comments in the torret of posts that invariably follows one of his random, inane anti-Darwinist rants, but I cant be arsed to pick them out. The whole lot goes. If anyone wants to lodge a complaint about censorship, they can find someone who cares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'They can find someone who cares.' Jesus, if I wanted to deal with someone like that, I'd argue with DaveSpringer at UD. Leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. Screw it.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,18:36

Wesley,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There seem to be some conflicting ideas of what the comments on PT posts are there for. Most contributors think that the comments are for others to reflect upon the post and put in some substantive commentary, adding to what is there or bringing up serious considerations and critique of the content of the post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There aren't a lot of posts that don't meet this criteria. You can't blame people for what they think is substance. Since it's OK to be Off-Topic here on the Bathroom Wall, I am going to ask you a question: what is the point of this blog? Is it an educational forum with serious entries or is there a sort of lighthearted side to it? I can think of a lot of posts that are just plain funny and have very little if any redeeming science or legal value. There is a lot of nuance to the global subject and the gray area is exceptionally hard to define. (Ask Raging Bee who makes very odd remarks here but publishes a pretty good blog of her own).

If people can't use laser-like accuracy in their comments it may be for several reasons, time constraints, knowledge level, elloquence at the moment etc. but they -we - really are discussing the topics, albeit sometimes in a roundabout way. This global subject has different meanings for different people and < That's why we post comments. >

I personally have a strange fascination with fundies ever since a bunch of them broke some equipment I was using. Weirdest thing but when confronted their lack of neurons was utterly astounding. They were doing gods work.

For whatever reason people comment they are contributing to the debate. You could always try to go to a slashdot kind of system but your impartiality is a pretty stark contrast to uncommon descent and people can see that. It is always better to be on the side of intellectual honesty and that is a major theme of this blog. Or am I missing the point entirely?

Would you prefer that I don't share my thoughts and opinions on PT? How about Arden? Lenny? k.e.? Or do we contribute in some way?

How about you Steve Reuland? What would you like to see?

I am not in a snit. I seriously wonder. I might have missed the mark when I first found this blog. It wouldn't be the first time. But I do have a serious interest in the topics and  I am a little irrepressable so I post comments.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 10 2006,19:07



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

There aren't a lot of posts that don't meet this criteria.

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



Let's be clear. A "post" on PT is the thing at the top, put there by one of the PT contributors or added as a guest entry. All the rest are "comments".

And I would have to disagree on the proportion of comments that meet the criteria I stated. I'm thinking that it is rather more like what is stated for the "Bathroom Wall": you go through a lot of oyster guts to get to the pearls.

Myself, I don't really expect to find that the comments have become a beautiful string of pearls. However, I would like to do what I can to encourage a somewhat higher rate of pearl production than what I see now.

I think I've established my track record or reputation concerning discussion. This BB has been going for several years now; it predates PT by a good while. To be allowed to post pretty freely here merely requires non-sociopathic behavior. That's beyond a very few people, and I do what I can to minimize their impact on the system. Long before the Internet was the social force it is today, I was operating a dial-up BBS. I set up the Fidonet Evolution and NeuralNet echoes (an echo is analogous to a Usenet newsgroup) and moderated those for several years. My approach has been to let people speak pretty freely, but challenge them to improve. If you think that your contributions, or Lenny's, or Arden's, or anybody else's are perfect already and I shouldn't be urging improvement, then we've come to an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Which just means that I will continue to press for improvement.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 10 2006,19:27

Wesley,
Well said. (deep bow)
Thank you.

(and I meant comments) :)

So, what about the "friends" post? And Andy/////whoever?
I'm just wondering what you think. You mentioned "troll like behavior" and I wonder what you think of their value. Are they the guy at the beginning of the tax hearing or is the tax hearing a bad analogy?
Posted by: tiredofthesos on Mar. 11 2006,11:56

Well, I have nothing really unique to say anyway, but the use of BW by a few of the folk I agree with at PT to make us look pure and selfless - this time my comment really was a simple and controlled expression of my extreme disgust for someone everyone finds disgusting - while giving the real trolls full access to the same #### thread has broken my trust.

Many of the pro-science side, like myself, have justified anger and disgust, and how we express it is our own business -- if not making threats or derailing threads -- and the threadmasters who act like pastors instead of editors can #### well piss off when they abuse their position.

I'll leave the boards to others and work with the issue in ways that matter, and right now the PT discussions do not matter much: this is the trench warfare phase of the struggle when no lurker is going to change their mind no matter how many propaganda flyers are scattered about, or how many well-crafted, sincere, angry, cheerful, honest posts anyone makes.


PT (and Talk Origins and several others!;) has a real function, and I laud the people doing the real work of detailing the science and exposing the lies and intrigues of the completely cynical Creationist/ Fundamentalist movement, but why involve myself in what is now a stupid shouting match? Why argue or persuade people as shitty and stupid as LarryF, or Thordaddy, or as insincerely sincere as that Advo guy?
It's your time, folks, and do what you think right, or enjoy, but I've finally had enough, with also being casually pissed on by someone with the views I support as well.

Goodbye, until the next "VC" and "VID" Days, at least!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2006,12:20

testing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 11 2006,12:47

Uh oh. You know things are getting bad when PT starts bouncing Wesley here! ;)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2006,15:27

I bounced myself. I do that fairly regularly, even when it's not simply a test of software changes. If I chime in on something that ends up being a digression, I have no qualms about moving my bits over here along with the rest of the digression.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2006,15:29

testing.
Posted by: theyeti on Mar. 11 2006,20:33

Hi.  Steve Reuland here.  Given that my bouncing messages here has caused some amount of consernation, I figured I'd explain myself.

1. The person known as "Andy H" and various other pseudonyms has effectively been banned.  He apparently uses multiple IP addresses which makes it very hard to ban him outright.  Reed and Wesley, who run the technical aspects of the blog (all props to them) are doing what they can, but they work their tails off to make this blog what it is, and problems like this just come with the territory.  I am NOT trying to give anyone a hard time while ignoring the root of the problem.  The root of the problem is being dealt with, but it ain't an easy problem to deal with (and out of my hands anyway).  

2.  When I moved "Andy H's" comment and all of those that responded to him, I purposely did not try to differentiate those that were legit from those that weren't.  The obvious reason for that is that I don't want to pass judgment on those responses that were okay vs. those that were not.  That puts me in a position that I don't want to be in.  All of them were off-topic, and I figured it would be best if I treated them all the same way.  If I let some of them stand and others not stand, then I'd be yelled at for selective moderation.  (Of course got yelled at anyway, but like I say, it comes with the territory...  ;) )

3.  I screwed up when I used the "junk" function to try to move comments here.  I thought that would move comments to the BW, but instead it put them into another category of "unpublished" comments.  They are not deleted.  But I also don't know how to get them back or put them here.  This is my fault, and not what I intended.  If it really matters to anyone, I'll try to do what I can to get them here.  (Unfortunately, that means leaning on Wesley to fix the problem, since I don't know how to do it.)

4.  I really don't take kindly to the suggestion that moderation equals censorship.  That is nonsense.  We have a fairly liberal policy concerning comments, and have banned very few people, but that never means that one can post whatever one pleases.  I consider comments to be a valuable tool for generating feedback, critique, and to add additional information.  If I didn't see things this way, I wouldn't even open them in the first place (every poster can just keep them closed if he or she pleases).  That being said, it really defeats the purpose of having comments when a lot of people use them to lob insults at each other, regardless of who started it.

5.  And my final comment is not really related to my current bouncing of messages, but I'd like to make a plea to those of us who are pro-evolution and anti-ID not to make comments that have no other purpose other than to insult IDists (please don't call them IDiots), so-called "fundies", or worst of all, religion in general.  I honestly don't see the point in any of that.  Our goal is to explain to the population at large what's wrong with ID/creationist claims and arguments.  If you don't like religion, I hate to break it to you, but several of our contributors (including Wesley) are religious.  And yet we all manage to get along because we find common ground in science and reason.  If you want to make jabs at people who have conservative, fundamentalist beliefs, well guess what?  You're preaching to the choir.  You are saying nothing profound or original by pointing out that there is something wrong with the way some of these people think.  Who, precisely, do you think such attacks manage to influence?  Not me -- I'm already on board.  Not them, they just use such attacks to reinforce their inaccurate view that all of us are a bunch of as pinko atheist humanistic anti-religious whatever the #### it is we're suppsed to be.  How about those people sitting on the fence?  You'll influence them, one hopes, with lucid explanations about what's wrong with creationism, not with crude attacks on religion or political points of view with which they may have sympathy.  Just saying is all.
Posted by: theyeti on Mar. 11 2006,20:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, Arden, make it a game. See what you can get away with!
...
So if you want to get back at him, tease him, don't go away mad. Try to stay nominally on topic but look through the historical postings. If you took OT posts out many threads would have no posts at all. It is a broad topic and peevish behavior is to be expected from anyone from time to time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, no, this is exactly what you should not be doing.  Trying to test me is not cool.  It is what is called trolling, and if you keep it up, it will get you banned.  Not because I don't love you (I do! ) but because it is against the rules.  And it is very much counter-productive to what we are trying to do.  

theyeti
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,00:03



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

So, what about the "friends" post? And Andy/////whoever?
I'm just wondering what you think. You mentioned "troll like behavior" and I wonder what you think of their value. Are they the guy at the beginning of the tax hearing or is the tax hearing a bad analogy?

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



I don't get the allusion to a "friends" post.

Andy/Larry/whoever uses a lot of different IPs to evade IP banning. If PT went to a completely closed registration, or moderated all posts, we could keep Andy and other despicable computer cracker types out. Other than that, it's going to be up to posters to moderate their threads. Some people have the time to do that, others don't and may simply turn off comments. In the latest case that we're discussing, there was confusion over how to move comments here to the Bathroom Wall, and some comments got tagged as "junk" instead.

I missed the "tax hearing" thing, too. Sorry.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:15

Test 1
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:15

Test 2
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:15

Test 3
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:25

Test 4
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:25

Test 5
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,01:36

Someone made a comment about things being equally hard to move a comment to the Bathroom Wall as to unpublish or delete. Actually, up to today, it was more difficult to move a comment to the Bathroom Wall than to do either of the other things, because the only means of doing so involved treating each comment individually.

I've just tried out my new MT plugin that provides another action for moving that can act on multiple selected comments at once, and it seems to be working. So hopefully PT contributors will have a little easier time of keeping discussions on-track now.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Mar. 12 2006,10:03

Hey Blast, so far EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST YOU HAVE EVER TALKED WITH HERE has concluded that you're full of it.

Why do you suppose that is, Blast?
Posted by: Faidon on Mar. 12 2006,10:34

LOL


Tell you what Dave, why don't you intelligently design a time machine and go live between the years 1954 and 1967?
That way, you'll actually have a chance of being almost right about something for once...

...Nah, not really. I'm messing with you, you'd still be wrong; don't send that memo to the ID R&D department just yet. After all, I'm sure they're quite busy.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Mar. 12 2006,10:34

<quote>
Posted by Wein's Law on March 11, 2006 02:01 PM (e)

Berlinski was mocking you people. It wasn’t that subtle but it still appears to have zipped right over the tops of your pointy little heads.

This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others. LOL

Just ask Dr. Math!

< http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60409.h… >

The proof of the pudding of course is in the tasting.

GOOGLE FIGHT!

< http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&… >

ROFLMAO! I kill me sometimes.

</quote>

Well welcome back.

Dave Scot, why are you so proud of being ignorant?

As for this
<quote>
I kill me sometimes.
</quote>

What a shame it is not true.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Mar. 12 2006,10:35

<quote author="Dave Scot">Berlinski was mocking you people. It wasn’t that subtle but it still appears to have zipped right over the tops of your pointy little heads.

This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others. LOL

Just ask Dr. Math!

< http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60409.h… >

The proof of the pudding of course is in the tasting.

GOOGLE FIGHT!

< http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&… >

ROFLMAO! I kill me sometimes.</quote> Interesting.  Dave, you were explicitly banned from PT for making threats and in general being an ass.

I note that you're too stupid to disguise who you are, and are consequently going to be banned again.

Why continue to be so dumb?  Why continue to support a losing cause?  Why continue to demonstrate your lack of integrity, honesty, and intelligence?

Why, why, why?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 12 2006,10:35

<b><i>DaveScot said:</i></b>

<quote>ROFLMAO! I kill me sometimes.</quote>

Yeah, yeah, <i>promises, promises</i>...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 12 2006,11:32

I see the frenzied bouncing is continuing. So this makes 2 people there who do this, Steve Reuland and Nick Matzke. I wonder if this will become the new policy of everyone's threads and whether it will be applied even-handedly...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 12 2006,11:40

That last wasn't Nick. Banned commenters on PT will have their comments unpublished and replies to those comments will go to the Bathroom Wall. That is a site-wide thing, not something that need be left to individual contributors.

This is not "frenzied bouncing". This is a considered application of the rules that we have laid down for comments.

We started the Bathroom Wall because there are a lot of comments that do not substantially contribute to consideration of a post, but we did not simply want to delete what commenters have said, even when it is digressive or otherwise inappropriate to the discussion. (And the contributor has the final say on that judgment.) So I think that moving comments to the Bathroom Wall should be pretty much a common thing for contributors to do. Now that I've made it easier to accomplish, I will be pushing contributors to make more use of it.


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 12 2006,12:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now that I've made it easier to accomplish, I will be pushing contributors to make more use of it.

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

Good. PT is better with a bathroom wall.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Mar. 13 2006,06:42

Hi, Larry.  Back dishonestly using yet <i>another</i> pseudonymn?  Why do you do it? Are you honestly so foolish as to think that your content-free, scientifically-illiterate, ignorant posts are not immediately recognizable?  Amazing.

<quote author="Larry le pissoir">You can say that again. Consider the following —

A Guardian article reported a recent UK public opinion poll that showed that 4 out of 10 think that ID should be taught in science classes. See < http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,… > .</quote> Unfortunately for you, you failed to even bother to read the article.  The poll was about <i>religious</i> alternatives.  And you've claimed that ID isn't religious.

Get a clue, Larry.  Your continual posting in ignorance and deceit is boring.

<quote>http://www.furl.net/members/bsgroup/Creationism%…) reports on the controversy in Australia, Eastern Europe, Germany, Finland, Turkey, and New Zealand.</quote> Misleading data from a creationist nutcase.  More Larry ignorance.

<quote>http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/C84… reports that a Russian schoolgirl has filed a lawsuit “demanding that the Russian Education Ministry rewrite biology textbooks to include the view of creationism — the belief that God created the universe and all living beings as described in the Bible. Teaching only the theory of evolution, she says, violates freedom of conscience and religious rights, and therefore runs counter to the constitution.” This article also reports a public opinion poll in Russia that shows strong support for creationism. Ironically, revulsion against the “godlessness” of communism was supposedly the motivation for permanently adding the motto “In God We Trust” to all US money in 1955 (the motto had appeared on various coins off-and-on dating back to 1864) and adding “under god” to the pledge of allegiance to the flag in 1954.</quote> But ID is not religion, Larry.  You've said so.

Do try to be consistent in your ignorance.  Thank you.

<quote>http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1188423… reported, *…..as in the United States, creation and evolution are political issues in Italy. In February[2004], Alleanza Nazionale, one of parties in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s governing coalition, held a week long series of events to dispute the theory of evolution. In the course of a conference entitled Teaching Evolution: a Fairytale for the Schools, parliamentarian Pietro Cerullo linked Darwin’s theory to leftist thought.*</quote> There are a minority of nutcases everywhere.  So what?

<quote>ID is a raging controversy in the Catholic church. Cardinal Schonborn, chief editor of the Catholic catechism, supports it, while Father George Coyne, chief Vatican astronomer, opposes it.</quote> "Raging controversy"?  LOL.

Fortunately, the Church is far more informed that you are, Larry.  They're not ignorant.  And they have been debating the proper relationship of science and faith for well over a thousand years; all the way back to St. Augustine, in fact.  You'd know that if you knew anything about the Church or the history of Christianity.  But apparently you don't.

==============================

<quote>Thus, the notion that evolution theory is controversial only in the USA is utterly without foundation.</quote> Nobody ever said that; you're making up <i>strawmen</i> again.  Of course, since you claim that you <i>don't</i> make up strawmen, we see that you're being inconsistent, as well as dishonest and ignorant.

Why, Larry?  In the age of the internet, your ignorance is inexcusable!

<quote>This false notion is especially promoted by those who falsely claim that the USA’s controversy over evolution theory is going to hurt the country’s international technological competitiveness.</quote> It will.  Thank God you have nothing to do with science - you're a menace.
<quote>In any case, raising doubts about evolution theory need not be a problem, because scientists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.</quote> But they don't, Larry.  Another ridiculous strawman, written by someone without any knowledge or experience with science or any 'hard' discipline.

Scientists accept evolution as the best current explanation to fit the facts.  Only an ignorant fundie, such as yourself, would claim that scientists 'believe' or don't 'believe' in it.

And there <i>are</i> no doubts about whether evolution takes place, Larry.  Only arguments about the relative weight of mechanisms.  Of course, if you knew anything about evolution, you'd have known that.

But you don't.
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on Mar. 13 2006,06:42

Hey, Larry, what's with all the aliases?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Mar. 13 2006,06:42

<quote>Thus, the notion that evolution theory is controversial only in the USA is utterly without foundation. </quote>


Follow the money.  Americans are behind each of these.  After all, YOU only know about them because of AiG or ICR, right?

Since they got pasted so bad in Dover, it's not surprising that the fundies have been forced to bother people in other countries instead.

Alas, they will do no better there than they have in the US.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Mar. 13 2006,06:42

<quote>Thus, the notion that evolution theory is controversial only in the USA is utterly without foundation. </QUOTE>


Follow the money.  Americans are behind each of these.

Since they got pasted so bad in Dover, it's not surprising that the fundies have been forced to bother people in other countries instead.
Posted by: Raging Bee on Mar. 13 2006,06:44

Kinda Sorta Important Notice: Johncabbreck, also posting as Larry Fafarman, Andy H., and possibly other names, has a well-known habit of repeatedly posting assertions and arguments that have been soundly refuted in other threads on PT. Such repetitive axe-grinding, combined with his intellectual dishonesty, arguments from ignorance and incomprehension, and explicit refusal to acknowledge any fact that he finds inconvenient, have proven that he is not arguing in good faith and is not interested in real adult debate, and may not even be capable of it.

In addition, he is a Holocaust-denier. (His views on the curvature of the Earth have not yet been ascertained.) And he has all but explicitly admitted that his purpose in posting here is to get attention, not to engage in adult discourse. Therefore, responding to his "arguments" is probably a waste of time, and it may be best simply to ignore them.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 13 2006,06:54

Wesley has said that the new PT policy is to delete the comments of people who have been banned, and to bounce the <i>responses</i> to banned people to the Bathroom wall. Apparently Larry has officially been banned. Thus, if 'Johncabbreck' is indeed Larry, as seems extremely likely, his post should be deleted and his latest IP address banned. If these policies are to be implemented at all, they need to be consistent.

[PT Rule 2, amended to "move" rather than "remove". - WRE]


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 13 2006,06:59

Arden,

There is no new policy. Someone under a ban has no expectation that any illicitly entered comment will be retained. Anyone responding to such a comment is engaged in a meta-site issue, and thus those comments fall under Rule 2, and may be removed entirely without notice.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 13 2006,10:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2006,12:59)
Arden,

There is no new policy. Someone under a ban has no expectation that any illicitly entered comment will be retained. Anyone responding to such a comment is engaged in a meta-site issue, and thus those comments fall under Rule 2, and may be removed entirely without notice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley:

Perhaps the policy isn't new, but lots of people seem not to be aware of the policy (PvM didn't seem to know), and the policy went largely unenforced until just the last few days. That makes it essentially a 'new policy'.

The more people who explicitly know of this policy, the better.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 13 2006,10:50



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

That makes it essentially a 'new policy'.

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



David Springer sets a bad example of behavior. There is no need to imitate his intransigence on receipt of facts contrary to a claim.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 13 2006,10:57

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2006,16:50)


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

That makes it essentially a 'new policy'.

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



David Springer sets a bad example of behavior. There is no need to imitate his intransigence on receipt of facts contrary to a claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the insult, Wes.

BTW, Larry's posting again at Pim's thread. You might want to, um, do something about it.
Posted by: J. Biggs on Mar. 13 2006,11:09

It is obvious that Johncabbreck is Andy H./Larry Farflungdung and debating him is an utter waste of time as he will constantly change his mind about the meaning of what he writes.  If you do, however, choose to debate him he will make several amusing analogies and continually make statements like, "scientists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue." or something like, "I don't like the title Intelligent Design because it implies religion; irreducible complexity is better because it lacks that implication."  Nice try Larry.  Go trolling somewhere else.
Posted by: J. Biggs on Mar. 13 2006,11:09

<blockquote>There are doubts about whether random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain macroevolution.</blockquote>

Classic Larry.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 13 2006,11:09

PvM:

Larry is posting as Johncabbreck again. Delete and block his IP address, please?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Mar. 14 2006,18:27

Hey Blast, every scientist you've ever talked to has told you that you're full of it.

Why is that?
Posted by: ben on Mar. 15 2006,06:34

Shut up, Larry.  No one cares what you think (shrug).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 15 2006,07:19

Uh oh, I wonder what name Whack-a-mole Larry was going by this time?

Nice to see he's finally banned.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 20 2006,19:55

I see both DaveScot and Davison are both posting in the 'Evolution for Kids' thread. Dave's posting under 'DaveS', which he's been posting under for a week.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 20 2006,20:11

Also, 'J Early' in the Nancy Pearcy thread at PT is Larry.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 21 2006,06:49

Wesley:

Larry has several comments at the Nancy Pearcy thread at PT that ought to be deleted.

Look for 'J Early' and the terribly clever 'J Nameless'.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 21 2006,06:54

It doesn't matter if Larry is officially banned or not. He's still wrecking threads.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 21 2006,07:08

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 21 2006,12:54)
It doesn't matter if Larry is officially banned or not. He's still wrecking threads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think deleting his posts as soon as they appear and banning his IP addresses, as often as it has to be done, will help. Seems to me after they started doing that to him a week ago he disappeared for several days. If he doesn't get a reaction and if it's hard work for him to post there, he'll drift away.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 22 2006,07:06

< Old-World Primates Evolved Color Vision to Better See Each Other Blush, Study Reveals >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PASADENA, Calif.--Your emotions can easily be read by others when you blush--at least by others familiar with your skin color. What's more, the blood rushing out of your face when you're terrified is just as telling. And when it comes to our evolutionary cousins the chimpanzees, they not only can see color changes in each other's faces, but in each other's rumps as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Hair today, gone tomorrow? Butt at least the chimps can get to the bottom of things. :)  )

Henry
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 22 2006,16:30

Larry is posting as Noname in the Hunter's Distortions thread.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 23 2006,07:08

Looks like talkorigins is back up again. I was about to post mentioning that it was down since last night, but it's back now. Was it server problems?

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 23 2006,07:50

It seems to have been some sort of DNS glitch. Some people could not get to a variety of domains that have the same primary nameservers, but others had no such problem.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 23 2006,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 18
Joined: Oct. 2005
 Posted: Mar. 22 2006,22:30    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry is posting as Noname in the Hunter's Distortions thread.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When one person can cause the system so much grief, the system needs to be modifed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 23 2006,08:50



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

When one person can cause the system so much grief, the system needs to be modifed.

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



That's nice. Got any suggestions? Larry seems even better at finding new IP addresses than some others who could be mentioned.

So, maybe send an email request for confirmation for each comment entered? Use a registration system like Typekey? Set up so that all comments are moderated and will not be published until the post contributor approves them? If the thing being targeted by the troll is the openness of the system, pretty much any of these hands them a win.
Posted by: Faid on Mar. 23 2006,11:47

I don't think that something drastic should be done that's not already being done. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even matter if Larry is not banned right away and has time to post some gibberish before you track him down: All Larry wants now is to draw some attention to himself by pretending to be a martyr.
He probably visits other forums where he posts links to his comments here, to show how the panda's thumb is just a faschist site that bans all dissenters and deletes their comments- and he's the hero who defies them.
So, if there's anything more to be done, this is what it is (in my opinion):
Every time another incarnation of his gets banned, provide a preset link to a text explaining who he is, what his behavior here was, and his actions that led to his permanent banning (after a long period of tolerance).
If anyone prompted by Larry to come here is able to see a small summary of his stupidity, it would make his pathetic efforts for attention even more laughable.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Mar. 23 2006,12:50

someone else regularly suggests slashdot style moderation.

that would work against all trolls, larry included.

probably too much work tho.

easier would be just to get the contributers to recognize larry (gees, it's not hard) and toss his stuff on the BW more regularly.

seriously, Larry is immediately recognizable no matter what name he posts under.
Posted by: Althea on Mar. 26 2006,14:26

<quote author= "Sam Lewis who should be castigated for not giving prior warning">If we evolved from Homo Erectus, then why do I still get erections?</quote>

Why look a gift horse in the mouth?  You can achieve something Dembski cannot.

.

.

.


.


a positive outcome.
Posted by: Renier on Mar. 26 2006,14:26

<quote>I don’t think you can indent on PT. Let’s see.</quote>

I believe you are correct.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 26 2006,14:27

He also didn't initialize all the variables. LOL.

Henry
Posted by: steve s on Mar. 26 2006,14:27

I don't think you can indent on PT. Let's see.

   This should be indented.

Nope.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 27 2006,07:15

Larry is posting again under the name 'Nobody' in PT's thread 'The next time ID people cry censorship'. And of course, people are feeding him. Is someone going to delete his posts, or have they given up?
Posted by: Zero on Mar. 28 2006,03:45

I believe in an IDOL (Infinite designer of life )
Chaos comes naturally.  Order is “mind made”.

Creation 101

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.  
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

What God did not make:

1. Darkness, chaos
2. Moving waters
Chaos is natural.  Order is “mind made”.

What God did create:

Light on day one.
Heaven on day two. Order
Earth on day three.



Verse 1,IMO is sort of like saying the title of a book:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, as follows: (my words)

Verse 2 says, "These were the conditions that existed before God
begain to work. ....total chaos." ( my words)

Now if it's dark , one needs to turn on a light to work.
Jesus said, " The night cometh and no man can work."
The earth is always half dark and half light.  Mix the two and you have
morning and evening.

Now the first project begins, home.

The order of creation is as follows:

1. Verse 3 light
2. Verse 8 home. (firmament, heaven)
3. Verse 10 earth

When I posted the same topic on "Google talk origins", someone
posted,"You err." and he quoted where
God said,"I create darkness and I create light."

While taking a break, I jotted down my reply on a scratch pad:
"It's simple. If he chooses, he turns off the light."
I walked into my computer room to post, turned on the switch and the light bulb blew.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


Jesus said, “ I am the light of the world.
He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.”
I have never known a leader that had a guide,
a pathfinder a path, or a trailblazer a trail.

Walk in the light

..............................................

Word equals God x God (pure math)

Letting a=1, b = 2, c = 3, etc, mathematically:

God x God x God ….….….….….….….…… . = 47,900,160
70 seven fold x 99 x love….….….….….…. ... = 47,900,160
God x 1260 x love ….….….….….….….……. = 47,900,160
10 % of heaven seven fold x God x God ...........= 47,900,160
10 % of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10x11x12......... = 47,900,160 *
704 x 54 x 1260 (Rev 12:6.)….….….……..... = 47,900,160
word x (3xGod) ….….….….….….….….…... = 47,900,160

Jesus said, “ I have chosen you 12.”
word x 2112 (u 12) ….….….….….….……... = 47,900,160
47,900,160 minus (Jesus x Jesus x one) ……..= 47,160,900

word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
word = 54 x 7 x 15 x4
word = 22,680
word = 2/3 of iron ( 9 x18 x 15 x14) (Rev. 12:5)
word = First ( i ) x Last (14) x 360 over 2
word = one (ace) x 1 week (168 hours)
word = 90 % of seventy 360’s (the remainder is 2 1260’s)
word = first x last x it ( i x [a+m] x i x t )
word = 126 (az) x 180 (9 x 20)
word = God x God (John 1:1)

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
word equals God x God
word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)


God = 1260 (alpha, omega & nothing )
God = 704 (beginning, end & nothing)
God = 54 (first, last,& nothing) (Ass + 15) Zec 9:9
God = 26 ( a through z ) also G + o + d  (7 + 15 + 4)
God = U 12 (2112) divided by 3
God = 11 hidden in 3 measures (G , O , & D )  (111) (Az + fold) Zec 9:9
God = Eve x 22
God = Eve + 22
God = 10 % of heaven sevenfold
God = seven 360's folded
God =  the total of the first 12 #s divided by 3 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 divided by 3)
Jesus = the total of the second 12 #s divided by 3
( 3 x God ) + (3 x Jesus ) = the total of the first 24 #s
666 = the first 12 + the second 12 + the third 12  (check out a roulette table ) the total of the 4 center numbers on the table, 14, 17, 20, and 23=
74, Jesus (Gd).
666 = 9 x Jesus
666 + 12 = 378  (3 x God ) + (3 x Jesus ) + ( 3 x Alpha and Omega  or  3 x the beginning and the end  or 3 x the first and the last )
Jesus x 12  = 888  
God (704 ) = 88 x 8  (ph)
Jesus x 24  = 1776  Rev 4:4 And round about the throne [were] four and  ............................... twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and ................................twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and ................................they had on their heads crowns of gold.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Zero

* God’s reward for healing 10 lepers..........one “Thank you.”... 10 %.


2. Moving waters
Chaos is natural.  Order is “mind made”.

What God did create:

Light on day one.
Heaven on day two.
Earth on day three.



Verse 1,IMO is sort of like saying the title of a book:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, as follows: (my words)

Verse 2 says, "These were the conditions that existed before God
begain to work. ....total chaos." ( my words)

Now if it's dark , one needs to turn on a light to work.
Jesus said, " The night cometh and no man can work."
The earth is always half dark and half light.  Mix the two and you have
morning and evening.

Now the first project begins, home.

The order of creation is as follows:

1. Verse 3 light
2. Verse 8 home. (firmament, heaven)
3. Verse 10 earth

When I posted the same topic on "Google talk origins", someone
posted,"You err." and he quoted where
God said,"I create darkness and I create light."

While taking a break, I jotted down my reply on a scratch pad:
"It's simple. If he chooses, he turns off the light."
I walked into my computer room to post, turned on the switch and the light bulb blew.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


Jesus said, “ I am the light of the world.
He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.”
I have never known a leader that had a guide,
a pathfinder a path, or a trailblazer a trail.

Walk in the light

..........................................................................................
.....

Word equals God x God (pure math)

Letting a=1, b = 2, c = 3, etc, mathematically:

God x God x God ….….….….….….….…… . = 47,900,160
70 seven fold x 99 x love….….….….….…. ... = 47,900,160
God x 1260 x love ….….….….….….….……. = 47,900,160
10 % of heaven seven fold x God x God ...........= 47,900,160
10 % of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10x11x12......... = 47,900,160 *
704 x 54 x 1260 (Rev 12:6.)….….….……..... = 47,900,160
word x (3xGod) ….….….….….….….….…... = 47,900,160

Jesus said, “ I have chosen you 12.”
word x 2112 (u 12) ….….….….….….……... = 47,900,160
47,900,160 minus (Jesus x Jesus x one) ……..= 47,160,900

word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
word = 54 x 7 x 15 x4
word = 22,680
word = 2/3 of iron ( 9 x18 x 15 x14) (Rev. 12:5)
word = First ( i ) x Last (14) x 360 over 2
word = one (ace) x 1 week (168 hours)
word = 90 % of seventy 360’s (the remainder is 2 1260’s)
word = first x last x it ( i x [a+m] x i x t )
word = 126 (az) x 180 (9 x 20)
word = God x God (John 1:1)

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
word equals God x God
word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)


God = 1260 (alpha, omega & nothing )
God = 704 (beginning, end & nothing)
God = 54 (first, last,& nothing) (Ass + 15) Zec 9:9
God = 26 ( a through z ) also G + o + d  (7 + 15 + 4)
God = U 12 (2112) divided by 3
God = 11 hidden in 3 measures (G , O , & D )  (111) (Az + fold) Zec 9:9
God = Eve x 22
God = Eve + 22
God = 10 % of heaven sevenfold
God = seven 360's folded
God =  the total of the first 12 #s divided by 3 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 divided by 3)
Jesus = the total of the second 12 #s divided by 3
( 3 x God ) + (3 x Jesus ) = the total of the first 24 #s
666 = the first 12 + the second 12 + the third 12  (check out a roulette table ) the total of the 4 center numbers on the table, 14, 17, 20, and 23=
74, Jesus (Gd).
666 = 9 x Jesus
666 + 12 = 378  (3 x God ) + (3 x Jesus ) + ( 3 x Alpha and Omega  or  3 x the beginning and the end  or 3 x the first and the last )
Jesus x 12  = 888  
God (704 ) = 88 x 8  (ph)
Jesus x 24  = 1776  Rev 4:4 And round about the throne [were] four and  twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Zero

* God’s reward for healing 10 lepers..........one “Thank you.”... 10 %.

Ps: I sent a copy of the above to Uncommon Descent and the Kansas School Bord.

I was gaged here:
< http://forums.about.com/n....atheism >
Posted by: k.e. on Mar. 28 2006,03:58

Hey Zero

Keep it, Heep it, up, the Funsies (not sic) luv that stuff.
IF you can keep on track for a few minutes get hold of

<url href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568491689/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/103-7304911-5119039?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S004#reader-link">"A Skeleton Key to Finnegans wake"</url>.

XXXXXX HCE (he ran a bar you know, long live Anna Livia Plura belle)
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 28 2006,05:57

< Converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme In Vitro >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 28 2006,08:23

< Taking a bite out of a fellow worker helps wasps recruit new foragers >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think you've got a bad boss, one who loves to chew people out, or if you work with backstabbing co-workers, be thankful you are not a wasp.

If you were, chances are your nestmates might bite you to communicate that it is time to leave the nest and forage for the colony, [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(OUCH!!;)
Posted by: J Simes on April 01 2006,10:32

The courtroom sketch of Judge Jones is too flattering -- it shows him with his hand on his chin,   as if he is actually thinking !  

I have been so busy finding flaws in the Dover decision that I missed an obvious one:   Considering the great breadth of the decision -- banning even the mere mention of ID in public-school science classrooms forever -- why was the decision based to such a great extent on just a single ID book,   <i>Of Pandas and People</i> ?    The name of the <i>Pandas</i> book appears no less than 74 times in the 139-page Dover opinion.     There are several other books that promote ID  -- <i>Pandas</i> just happened to be the book chosen by the Dover Area school board.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 01 2006,10:32

Larry:


Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling.  Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it.  After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not.  All that matters is that you FOLLOW it.  If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you.  (shrug)
Posted by: PvM on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote author="Larry">I have been so busy finding flaws in the Dover decision that I missed an obvious one: Considering the great breadth of the decision — banning even the mere mention of ID in public-school science classrooms forever — why was the decision based to such a great extent on just a single ID book, Of Pandas and People ? The name of the Pandas book appears no less than 74 times in the 139-page Dover opinion. There are several other books that promote ID — Pandas just happened to be the book chosen by the Dover Area school board.</quote>

Larry has been so budy trying to find flaws in the Dover decision and yet none of them really survived closer scrutiny. Pandas and People was used to implement the Dover ID policy. Based on Pandas and People as well as extensive expert testimony (I wonder if Larry is even aware of the available transcripts) show not just how the Dover board was trying to bypass the constitutional protections but also how ID, which was claimed to be 'scientifically relevant' failed as a science.

That there may be other books promoting ID is irrelevant Larry. As are most of your contrived objections to the excellent Dover decision.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 01 2006,10:32

Larry of course is ignoring the fact that other books on ID were in fact explicitly included in the decision (not to mention the testimony based upon other writings by the authors), and that many of the references to Pandas in the decision were in regards to the decision to purchase it, not the actual content.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>
Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 1, 2006 12:18 PM (e)

Larry of course is ignoring the fact that other books on ID were in fact explicitly included in the decision (not to mention the testimony based upon other writings by the authors), and that many of the references to Pandas in the decision were in regards to the decision to purchase it, not the actual content.
</quote>

Are you claiming Larry ignores inconvenient evidence? I am shocked sir! OK, maybe I am not (shocked that is).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>The courtroom sketch of Judge Jones is too flattering — it shows him with his hand on his chin, as if he is actually thinking !

I have been so busy finding flaws in the Dover decision that I missed an obvious one: Considering the great breadth of the decision — banning even the mere mention of ID in public-school science classrooms forever — why was the decision based to such a great extent on just a single ID book, Of Pandas and People ? The name of the Pandas book appears no less than 74 times in the 139-page Dover opinion. There are several other books that promote ID — Pandas just happened to be the book chosen by the Dover Area school board.</quote>

Nice to see you acknowledging April Fool's Day, Larry. And here I thought you had no sense of humor.

You've actually <i>read</i> the Dover decision?

Oh wait, yeah, April Fool's Day again. Gotcha.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>Nice to see you acknowledging April Fool’s Day, Larry. And here I thought you had no sense of humor.

You’ve actually read the Dover decision?

Oh wait, yeah, April Fool’s Day again. Gotcha.
</quote>

Errm, you don't think that that could have been an April's Fool by a regular PT member, posting as Larry, do you?

Bob
Posted by: Moses on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>Comment #92319

Posted by J Simes on April 1, 2006 06:14 AM (e)

The courtroom sketch of Judge Jones is too flattering — it shows him with his hand on his chin, as if he is actually thinking!

I have been so busy finding flaws in the Dover decision that I missed an obvious one: Considering the great breadth of the decision — banning even the mere mention of ID in public-school science classrooms forever — why was the decision based to such a great extent on just a single ID book, Of Pandas and People ? The name of the Pandas book appears no less than 74 times in the 139-page Dover opinion. There are several other books that promote ID — Pandas just happened to be the book chosen by the Dover Area school board.</quote>

His Name is Legion couldn't understand a comprehensive legal opinion, never mind find a flaw...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>Errm, you don’t think that that could have been an April’s Fool by a regular PT member, posting as Larry, do you?</quote>

Uh oh. Hadn't thought of that...

Well, unless <b>you</b> were the one who posted that message (well done, if so!), there's no telling, given the fact that there is technically no difference between IDC arguments and parodies of same.

But come to think of it, that message was WAY too short to be a standard Larry post. So <i>was</i> it you...?
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 01 2006,10:32

<quote>But come to think of it, that message was WAY too short to be a standard Larry post. So was it you…?
</quote>

Not me.  I was too busy ordering books from Amazon (a book of matches, and <i>Woodern Churches of Western Texas</i>).

Bob
Posted by: President Jefferson Davis on April 01 2006,10:32

I would like to protest in no uncertain terms that the previous post by J Simes was not in fact written by me, despite the name on it. First of all, it is an outrage to think that I would stoop to read the Dover decision. The twentytwo lawsuits which I have brought against the Federal Government have given me an expertise in the American legal system surely surpassing that of any lawyer, and I can confidently tell you without reading it that Judge Jones' ruling is completely illegitimate and will be shortly overturned. If you do a global search, you will see that Judge Jones' ruling contained the word 'the' over 1,200 times -- the same number as found in Karl Marx's <i>Communist Manifesto</i>, a book about communism, and the same number as found in the closing arguments of murderer OJ Simpson's fourteen lawyers, who, by the way, probably demanded inexcusably high hourly fees throughout the trial, a fact which Judge Jones failed to address <b>even once</b> in his supposedly exhaustive indictment of Intelligent Design. (So much for Judge Jones being a responsible pulic servant.) And all this was done on the taxpayers' dime. The good people of Pennsylvania surely deserve better.

I am also disturbed by the shameful cowardice of the Ohio Board of Education. I heard something to the effect that the government hired well over a hundred attorneys, all of them probably charging inexcusably large hourly fees. Why was this necessary? The forces of the Darwinists should certainly have needed no more than one lawyer, preferably working <i>voir dire</i>, which I'm pretty sure is a real legal term that real (overpaid) lawyers use, meaning 'to work for free'. Why were the Darwinists lawyers not willing to work <i>voir dire</i> in Ohio? Didn't they think their cause was important enough? This is something none of the evolutionists will talk about, no matter how much they may crow about their so-called victory in Pennsylvania. I find this hypocrisy appalling.

Ever since their little “victory“ against ID in Dover, Darwinists have been trying to give the false impression that all criticisms of Darwinism are ID. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many criticisms of Darwinism in fact are Creationist, and since Intelligent Design and Creationism have nothing in common, this proves that criticism of the standard totalitarian Darwinist orthodoxy comes from all corners of scientific endeavor.

Another piece of evidence why the Dover ruling was completely illegitimate was the number of lawyers involved. I think I read somewhere that the evolutionists hired upwards of 28 attorneys, while the school district probably hired far fewer, let's say 8 just for the sake of argument. However, a cold hard revisionist analysis of the facts will surely show that 28 attorneys were certainly not enough to defeat the 8 attorneys dedicated to the promulgation of free speech. How would the Darwinist attorneys be able to recognize the attorneys for the school district? How would they know where to find them, in order to round them up? How would they know where they lived? The logistics clearly could not be made to work, as any unbiased observer would have to agree. So therefore it is inescapable that in fact the defeat of intelligent design was in fact far <i>smaller</i> than Darwinists like to claim, or indeed, I daresay it is entirely possible that the Dover trial in fact did not take place at all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 01 2006,11:14

Larry is also posting at the "The next time ID people cry ‘censorship’" thread. Delete him there, too?
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 01 2006,11:20

henry;

i seldom check the bw any more.

why don't you post your items as new threads?

It certainly is more interesting that Thordaddy's drivel.

cheers
Posted by: J Simes on April 01 2006,12:59

<blockquote>Comment #92683 posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 1, 2006 04:34 PM

ADMIN NOTE

I’ve just moved a bunch of comments to the BW.

Do not feed the trolls!</blockquote>

So you deleted some posts that were reasonably on-topic while allowing posts about beer to remain.    That figures.

Panda`s Thumb should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award.   That is all there is to it.

<blockquote>Comment #92699 posted by Arden Chatfield on April 1, 2006 05:11 PM

Larry is also posting at the “The next time ID people cry ‘censorship’ ” thread. Delete him there, too?</blockquote>

Shut up,  #### you,  or I will start posting under your name.     Then some of your posts may be deleted along with mine.

It is ironic that you propose censoring messages that I posted on a thread that condemns censorship.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 01 2006,12:59

<quote>So you deleted some posts that were reasonably on-topic while allowing posts about beer to remain</quote>

actually, the posts on beer are far more ON topic, if you could be bothered to actually read Steve Steve's post.

what would a beer loving panda like more than bamboo beer?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 01 2006,14:41

Wes, Larry is STILL posting at the "The next time ID people cry censorship' thread. Any way to get him deleted, especially since he threatened to start posting under my name if I didn't leave him alone about it?
Posted by: Raging Bee on April 03 2006,10:43

Since Larry Noname Farfromsane seems too busy doing actual science in support of ID to respond here, I figured I'd offer what I infer will be his point of view on this.  Just for the sake of balanced treatment, of course...

<i>You call this a victory for Darwinian dogmatism?  Think again!  The first drawing proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the panda was exerting mind-control on Judge Jones, deluding him into making an unfounded, invalid activist decision.  Such mind-control techniques are well-known to persecuted truth-seekers like me: they're the same techniques used to make people think slavery was worse than it really was, and inflate the number of Jews killed during the "Holocaust."  Just one look at the panda's eyes and America's high-school students will know they're beeing lied to by dogmatic "scientists" and using super-powered pandas to corrupt the minds of good Republican judges into believing such totally implausible ideas as macroevolution.</i>
Posted by: Raging Bee on April 03 2006,10:43

<i>Whether it thrives or fails in someone’s belief system is strictly their business.</i>

Unless, of course, they try to pass it off as "science" and have it taught to other people's kids; in which case, they're guilty of fraud child-abuse, and subject to ridicule, ostracism and lawsuits.
Posted by: J. Biggs on April 03 2006,10:43

Dear Raging Bee,

Although that quote sums up Larry's position, it is far too coherent to have actually come from him.  Also he never refers to anyone who supports ToE as a scientist, they are always "Darwinists".  And Evolution is always Darwinism.  Also he would probably add that Judges have no authority to rule on issues brought before them if their rulings disagree with his position.  He also likes to add that it is improbable that unguided random mutation and natural selection can account for life's complexity.  You have to remember Larry is not only an engineer, but an expert in all fields of science, law, polling, history and basket-weaving.  How dare you question his authoritay.
Posted by: Raging Bee on April 03 2006,10:43

J: Biggs: You're right, of course; and my only excuse is that I don't have time to give Whatsmyname's obsessively-repeated axe-grinding the full range of the ridicule it deserves.

PS: I made a bit of a typo; I meant to say "...they’re guilty of fraud AND child-abuse..."
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 04 2006,09:01

What's the over-under on how soon Larry attempts to post in the Just Make Bizarre Stuff Up thread?  I bet he tries to refute my comment with a case (I have a specific one in mind) that in fact supports my comment.  Another Blum v. Stenson moment, as it were.

BTW, Wesley, does Larry's ban extend to AtBC?  I've been wanting to start a thread here (at AtBC) for detailed rebuttals of various ID arguments (so we can show that the arguments are refuted without derailing the original PT thread too badly), starting with Larry's 12 (13?) claims that Judge Jones messed up.  But I don't want to violate the rules (er, anymore than I have already - it's so hard to hold back when you've got a detailed rebuttal).  The idea is to have detailed rebuttals, like those I have posted, rather than the standard Lenny responses or the one-liners.
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 04 2006,09:46

just start it and see what happens, Kevin.

If they let thordaddy post threads, and not get banned, certainly nothing you could do would warrant punishment.

cheers
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 04 2006,15:57

8:15 eastern time as J. Simes.  I'll say the over got it.  Okay, next one.  Over/under for Wesley deleting it?  I'm placing the line at midnight eastern.
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 04 2006,16:17

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Wes won't delete the first one, but if larry posts the same drivel a second time, they both will be deleted then.

what's on the line here?  just bragging rights?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 04 2006,17:39

It's the internet, dude.  What else, other than posting rights, do we have to wager?

I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.  Actually, there's a hypothetical he brings up that I think is worth addressing (can an appeal be pre-emptively mooted by voluntary cessation?), regardless of who brought it up.
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 05 2006,00:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ahhh, but aren't you biasing the settings for the wager if you actually reply to Larry?

meh, besides which someone already did, a noob, no less, and immediately saw the inanity of larry's poots:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Zombie Jesus help his states bar association if hes an attorney.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so, i proceeded to inform our noob of larry's status as an escaped mental patient.
Posted by: J Simes on April 05 2006,03:21

The new school board should have avoided any <b>appearance</b> of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   and the new school board did not do that.    For that,  the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.  

(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs.    Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good,   these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money.     They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were <b>lucky</b> to get the chance.   Question -- what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?    

(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( -- from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ).      The new board`s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones` decision to ignore the effect of the election .     I think I smell a conspiracy here.  

(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys, 9-10,   which drove up the attorney fee award.      At least <b>five</b>  plaintiffs` attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (-- from < http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm >  ).     Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.  

(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( --from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ).      This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that  the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal,  something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.        

(5)  After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement,  the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton,  which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs,    "I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.`` -- from  http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3535139   Of course,  since the settlement had already been approved,   there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.    

(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement,  but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.

The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU -- at the expense of Dover taxpayers.

The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` attorneys.
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell on April 05 2006,03:21

<i>I think I smell a conspiracy here.</i>

I hear that tinfoil hats actually increase the ability of the CIA to get into your brain. Also, did you know that fluoride isn't really for making your teeth stronger, but it's actually to help satellites pinpoint your location by making you more electromagnetically 'visible' from space.

You'll do well to heed my warnings, lest you fall victim to the aryan 7 foot tall blond Lizards from space. They have sexual intercourse with women across America to make a new master race and are working with the CIA, fluoridation and the dover school district board to DESTROY US ALL.

DESTROY US ALL I TELL YOU.
Posted by: J Simes on April 05 2006,03:21

The new school board should have avoided any <b>appearance</b> of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   and the new school board did not do that.    For that,  the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.  

(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs.    Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good,   these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money.     They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were <b>lucky</b> to get the chance.   Question -- what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?    

(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( -- from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ).      The new board`s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones` decision to ignore the effect of the election .     I think I smell a conspiracy here.  

(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys, 9-10,   which drove up the attorney fee award.      At least <b>five</b>  plaintiffs` attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (-- from < http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm >  ).     Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.  

(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( --from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ).      This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that  the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal,  something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.        

(5)  After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement,  the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton,  which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs,    "I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.`` -- from  http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3535139   Of course,  since the settlement had already been approved,   there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs` legal representatives,   who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.    

(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting,   the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement,  but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.

The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU -- at the expense of Dover taxpayers.

The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` attorneys.
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell on April 05 2006,03:21

Did you think your paranoid ramblings weren't paranoid or irrelevant enough the first time to deserve being posted a second time?
Posted by: J Simes on April 05 2006,03:21

<blockquote>Comment #94761
Posted by Joseph O`Donnell on April 5, 2006 07:08 AM

Did you think your paranoid ramblings weren’t paranoid or irrelevant enough the first time to deserve being posted a second time?</blockquote>
Sorry.   It was an accident.   It has happened to other commenters too.    I don`t know how it happens.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on April 05 2006,03:21

Larry, you have been banned for being in violation of board rules (and you certainly <i>should</i> be ignored for making stupid, ill-informed, disruptive posts).  Your ignorance and maliciously rude behavior are pretty amazing, even for you.  Tell me - why <i>shouldn't</i> you be disemvowled?

Your latest screed is a case in point: it contains no actual information, no logic, and displays such an astounding ignorance of the law that I can only hope that you're not conscious of your own short-comings.

You really don't need to show us that you're rude, ignorant, and dumb.  We've already figured that out.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 05 2006,03:21

Reed, J Simes is a known alias of the banned poster Larry Fafarman.  He was banned for posting for several months under numerous names after being warned that doing so would get him banned, and for posting under the name of a PT regular (sir-toejam, if I recall).  He has also threatened to post under Arden Chatfield's and my names in an attempt to get some of our posts deleted.  (NB - he was not banished for the content of his posts, though that may have contributed to the decision)  Please take the proper actions.
Posted by: Moses on April 05 2006,03:21

<quote>Comment #94760

Posted by J Simes on April 5, 2006 07:02 AM (e)

The new school board should have avoided any appearance of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs‘ legal representatives, and the new school board did not do that. For that, the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.</quote>

No, they couldn't.  Because wing-nut echo chamber would drag them, regardless.  <b>Just like it did!</b>

<quote>(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs. Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good, these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money. They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were lucky to get the chance. Question — what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?</quote>

We have a funny little thing here in America.  It's called "the law."  The law said that the Board had to make a motion and wait 30-days for the public to comment and have proper notice.

<b>And, regardless, the Board couldn't moot the case because that's the way the law works.</b>  If you don't like the way the law works, I suggest you deal with it or move somewhere else where law-breakers can just say "oops, I'm reformed" to sabotage any case you bring.  Only to, once the case is dismissed, start their illegal actions all over again.

<quote>(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( — from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ). The new board‘s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones‘ decision to ignore the effect of the election . I think I smell a conspiracy here.</quote>

Ah, a conspiracy nut.  Figures.  The truth is, once the case went to court and had been heard, there wasn't any point because the case couldn't be mooted (that's what Judge Jones was talking about).  Further, there was no reason to think (like happened in Kansas) the follow-up board wouldn't do the same #### thing.

Nope.  What was needed was a full-on judgment preventing this garbage from happening again as <b>the cretionist board refused to enter into a consent decree settlement binding the school district forever.</b>

<quote>(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs’ attorneys, 9-10, which drove up the attorney fee award. At least five plaintiffs‘ attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (— from < http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm > ). Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.</quote>

Whaaa, whaa, whaa...   You know nothing of these types of Federal cases.  This wasn't an excessive number of attorneys or an excessive bill.  I've seen cases run into the $5 million, or more, legal fees.  And we're not talking "contingency" fees.  We're talking billable hours.

<quote>(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( —from < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 > ). This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal, something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.</quote>

The TMLC could have won the case (if they had one).  The Board (due to being unable to moot the case) couldn't change the policy to avoid fees.  The board, due to the law, couldn't change the policy until January 5th at the earliest.  The board wasn't the ****ing plaintiff!!!

<quote>(5) After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement, the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton, which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs, “I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.“ — from < http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_… > Of course, since the settlement had already been approved, there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs‘ legal representatives, who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.</quote>

They were gracious.  They could have billed DOUBLE, and collected, for what was settled.  <b>No point in acting like an ASS and doubling your costs, now is there?</b>  Or do things like actual manners and common sense get suspended by the wing-nuts?


<quote>(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement, but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.</quote>

Once again, this little thing called "the law" prevents your proposed actions.  They propose a change.  It must be open for 30-days for public comment.  Then they must HEAR the public comment and vote.

No matter what YOU say from YOUR ignorance.

<quote>The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU — at the expense of Dover taxpayers.</quote>

The original board, perhaps.  Your lack of knowledge otherwise doesn't make your flimsy accusation correct.

<quote>The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs‘ attorneys.</quote>

You can't prove that you're not a child molester or serial rapist.  However, if I were to make those charges, <b>the burden of proof</b> (you know, taught to you 6th grade and 12th grade) <b>would be on me,</b> the accuser.  And, if I made those charges, and they were completely bogus, you could sue me for libel and/or slander.
Posted by: Moses on April 05 2006,03:21

<quote>Comment #94776

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on April 5, 2006 07:43 AM (e)

Larry, you have been banned for being in violation of board rules (and you certainly should be ignored for making stupid, ill-informed, disruptive posts). Your ignorance and maliciously rude behavior are pretty amazing, even for you. Tell me - why shouldn’t you be disemvowled?

Your latest screed is a case in point: it contains no actual information, no logic, and displays such an astounding ignorance of the law that I can only hope that you’re not conscious of your own short-comings.

You really don’t need to show us that you’re rude, ignorant, and dumb. We’ve already figured that out.</quote>

Oh crap, I wasted 15-minutes of my life on Larry the idiot?  Great.  Just ****ing great.
Posted by: J Simes on April 05 2006,04:37

Not only was Dover plaintiff Bryan Rehm not on the school board at the time of the Dec. 5 meeting (though he might have attended the meeting as a private citizen),   but as a board member he abstained from the board`s February vote that approved the $1 million settlement with the plaintiffs -- see < http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm >  

If DI really wants to complain about something,   they should complain about the excessive number of plaintiffs` attorneys of record,  9-10,  which had the effect of driving up the calculated plaintiffs` attorney fees.     The above news article notes that the plaintiffs had no fewer than five attorneys in the courtroom on each day of the six-week trial.  

Thanks for bringing to my attention this Dec. 5 Dover school board meeting.    I was not even aware that this meeting took place -- I thought that the first meeting of the new board was on Jan. 3.

Outgoing board member Napierskie made the same proposal -- i.e.,  to try to moot the case by rescinding the ID policy -- at a mid-November ``lame duck`` meeting of the old school board (i.e.,  the meeting was held after the election).   See the following two news articles about this November meeting --

``End to Dover Suit Sought`` -- < http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219237 >

```Backing Out Possible,  not simple`` --  http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198

The second of the above two news articles shows that there was conflicting legal advice at the time of the mid-November meeting --

School district attorney Richard  Thompson said,    ``By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs` ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees.``

``Kevin Alan Lewis, assistant professor of theology and law at the Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in California, said the defense could file a motion to dismiss on the basis that there is no controversy because the new board doesn`t favor the curriculum.``

`` The law is clear that a court cannot make a decision on a case that is moot,``  [Carlisle attorney Andrew]  Shaw`s document read. ``If the court cannot make a decision, the court also cannot award attorney fees.``

Napierskie`s proposal was also rejected by the outgoing board at this November meeting --
``Napierskie said he was surprised board members didn`t second his motion because they won`t be around to fight the suit,  and the new board isn`t interested in having intelligent design in science class.    He also didn`t believe the new board would continue with Thompson.``

Also,  by mid-November,   some incoming board members had already expressed their intention to not do anything until after the release of the judge`s decision --  ``Several incoming board members, including Patricia Dapp,  Terry Emig and Judy McIlvaine,  said they want to hear what the judge has to say in the case.``     I think that was a cop-out,  because I presume that they had campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID policy.

Regardless of the issue of awarding of legal fees,   I think that one of the best reasons for declaring this case to be moot -- or at least ruling on narrow grounds -- was that the changeover in the school board enormously complicated the situation in regard to an appeal.    Of course,   it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.    And what if,  just <b>hypothetically</b>,   the judge had ruled in favor of the defendants -- then how could the plaintiffs have appealed?     Would the new school board members have decided to fight an appeal after they had campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID policy?     If  the new board decided to repeal the ID policy anyway,   that would have mooted any appeal by the plaintiffs.     Technically speaking,  the plaintiffs would then have achieved the goal of getting rid of the ID policy,    but they would have been stuck with a precedent that they would not have liked.    

Others are now going to argue that my ``hypotheses`` are meaningless because they  describe ``impossible`` situations.    But courts are supposed to follow particular principles and procedures regardless of the situation or outcome.

Also, a court decision should not be made on the basis that one of the parties is ``entitled`` to an award of attorney fees and that making a decision on the case`s merits -- as opposed to dismissing the case -- is just a means of establishing eligibility for the award.

BTW,  along this same line of reasoning --
What if -- <b>hypothetically</b> -- the judge ruled that the Dover ID policy fails the Lemon test`s ``purpose`` prong but passes the ``effect`` prong?     The plaintiffs would of course be unhappy with the ruling that the ID policy passes the effect prong,   but they could not appeal this ruling,   since they won the case anyway.      I think this describes another good reason why a judicial analysis should end as soon as it appears that the basis for a decision is airtight.    

Anyway,   I think that there are some very ticklish legal questions here -- the situation was not as clearcut as some people would like to believe.

==========================================

``The world must construe according to its wits.      This court must construe according to the law.``   -- Sir Thomas More in the play,  ``A Man for all Seasons.``
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 05 2006,04:37

bing bing bing!!!

we have a winner!

Larry finally posted his usual drivel here.

gees, lar, took you long enough.

now, where is that delete button...
Posted by: Colin on April 05 2006,04:37

<i>Others are now going to argue that my “hypotheses“ are meaningless because they describe “impossible“ situations. But courts are supposed to follow particular principles and procedures regardless of the situation or outcome.</i>

And those principles and procedures clearly forbid a district court from dismissing a challenge to an action capable of repetition.  Every lawyer who has looked at this issue with anything remotely approaching objectivity agrees that the district court could not have dismissed this action as moot even if it had been asked.  Even the board's counsel, whose interests were perfectly aligned with presenting the board with any option that could make the case go away, concluded that moving for a mootness dismissal would be a waste of time.  

I assume that Larry is a layperson.  (Zombie Jesus help his state's bar association if he's an attorney.)  Law isn't as expert-driven as science, but even so, why does it never occur to laypeople such as creationists and legalistic crackpots that the field they've chosen to stalk is actually more complicated than picking a convenient position and defending it against all contrary facts?  These really aren't difficult legal questions... Asking, "Why would this case not be mootable?" is one thing.  Insisting over and over and over again that you know better than every objective legal analysis out there is just kind of sad.
Posted by: Stevaroni on April 05 2006,04:37

<blockquote class="kw_quote">Of course, it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.</blockquote>

But the original school board members weren't the actual defendant, the Dover School District was. Ultimately the voters that make up the District (remember them, the people who ultimately had to pay the bill) got together and wisely chose a path where they wouldn't appeal.

People are thrown out of government for doing stupid things all the time. Unfortunately even though the stupid person is gone, the liability usually stays, so it's only fair that the effected party, be it a town or the school board on their behalf, gets to figure out how to best move on.  This is no different, the people of Dover spoke, and said "enough of this foolishness". Had the people (again, the real defendant) though it was an idea worth fighting for, they could have re-elected the board members that dragged them to courthouse steps in the first place.

I find it somewhat disingenuous that the "original defendants" and those that goaded them on, arranged to fight their good fight on someone else's dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 05 2006,04:37

<QUOTE>(Zombie Jesus help his state’s bar association if he’s an attorney.)</QUOTE>

no worries; larry's an escapee from an as yet unknown insane assylum, somewhere near the LA area.

irritating, always wrong, completely inane, but generally harmless.
Posted by: J Simes on April 05 2006,04:37

<blockquote>Comment #94647 posted by Stevaroni on April 5, 2006 12:43 AM  
<blockquote>Of course, it was unfair that the original defendants had no chance to appeal because they were voted off the school board.</blockquote>

But the original school board members weren’t the actual defendant, the Dover School District was.</blockquote>

This is nitpicking sophistry.     The actual defendant named in the lawsuit`s official complaint was the ``Dover Area School District Board of Directors,``   which is informally known as the ``Dover School Board.``   The official complaint also named the ``Dover Area School District`` as a defendant,   but this was just a formality  because the Dover School Board was solely responsible for the ID policy.           See --http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/complaint/2004-12-14_Kitzmiller_v_DASD_Complaint.PDF    The original school board members in their official capacities as school board members constituted the actual defendant.

In the Hurst v. Newman case (El Tejon,  Calif.;   this case did not go to trial),   the plaintiffs prevented the possibility of any confusion as to who the actual defendants were by suing the school board members both as individuals and in their official capacities as school board members.     See < http://www2.ncseweb.org/hurst/Hurst_v_Newman_Complaint.pdf >

<blockquote>I find it somewhat disingenuous that the “original defendants” and those that goaded them on, arranged to fight their good fight on someone else’s dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.</blockquote>

So?    The plaintiffs and ``those that goaded them on`` also ``arranged to fight their good fight on someone else’s dime, and then got all mad when the people actually paying the bill decided to throw in the towel.``    Many on the plaintiffs` side wished that the case had been appealed,    even though the plaintiffs won.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 05 2006,04:37

Larry, do you ever tire of making stuff up?
Posted by: Raging Bee on April 05 2006,04:37

Sir_Toejam: When did Larry actually make up anything new, other than his latest nom-de-merde?  He's been recycling stale creationist talking-points at least since I first came here.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 05 2006,04:45

Thanks, Reed.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 05 2006,04:45

Now, is there <i>any way</i> we can keep Larry from posting on this?
Posted by: J. Biggs on April 05 2006,05:11

Dear Wes Elsberry:

I just want to inform you that J.Simes/Larry made this comment in <b>No More Coffee for Mr. Witt</b>.

<blockquote>Commenters here who continue to ask that I be banned or deleted will run the risk that I will carry out my threat to start posting under their names. That way some of their posts may be accidentally deleted along with mine.

Calls for bans and deletions on PT show the same pro-censorship mentality as the calls for bans on scientific challenges to evolution theory.

As for the PT staff, I say again — the PT staff should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in PT‘s Scientific American magazine web award.</blockquote>

He has been banned because he has repeatedly shown that he can not play by the rules.  I suspect that you know he will also lay waste to this thread if you let him.  Since this is your thread, banning Larry is certainly your call.  However, I think we can all see he deserves being banned.
Posted by: Moses on April 05 2006,05:11

I see Larry is at it again.  The defendants were the Dover Area School District <b>and</b> the Dover Area School District Board of Directors.

While Larry may think it's nitpicking, it's anything but nitpicking.  It's details.  And cases are won and lost on the details.  Sue the wrong person and you may find yourself on the outside, looking in, as the case is dismissed and you've gotten past the statute of limitations to sue the correct parties.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 05 2006,05:25

And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 05 2006,05:29

I just wish the PT gang could be consistent about bouncing Larry's messages. They only ever bother to do it in about a third of the threads that he infects.

Also they're not consistent about what they do with Larry's messages -- half the time they're deleted, and half the time they come here. I doubt this is the result of any specific policy.

Either way, it's a good start.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 05 2006,05:37

Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on April 05 2006,06:30

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Larry post at UD?  Under which of his many, many, many aliases?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on April 05 2006,06:41

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ April 05 2006,11:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Larry post at UD? Under which of his many, many, many aliases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 05 2006,07:35

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,11:41)
[quote=Rilke's Granddaughter,April 05 2006,11:30][quote=Stephen Elliott,April 05 2006,10:37]Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, it's not your opinion, it's an objective, emperical fact: Larry IS an irritant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
Does Larry post at UD? Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Larry behaved at UD the way he does at PT, UD would tell him to shut up, too.

Larry I warned you about changing your name every two days and I don't see why you're qualified to give legal advice. You're outta here.-dt
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 05 2006,09:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but, it was after he posted twice, yes?

so, er, who won?
Posted by: k.e. on April 05 2006,11:18

Larry I completely agree with you
It's a pity the creationists who brought the case to court aren't made to pay the legal fees since what they did was illegal.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 05 2006,11:18

<quote>I would have left it a long time ago.</quote>

larry, you've been BANNED, for flagrantly violating the rules of this very board.

as you are doing, yet again.

your posts are moved not only because they are inane, but because you have been BANNED.

why don't you look that up?  Oh that's right, your reading comprehension is extremely limited.

BANNED:  as in; excluded, no longer wanted, ridden out on a rail, hit the road jack...

If PT actually required registration, you would not have been able to violate the rule against posting after you have been banned, but because there is NO censorship on PT, you are still able to post.

Now go away, Idiot.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 05 2006,11:18

<quote>If you are deleting my posts on sight because of my posting name, I will just have to change my posting name again. I have gone through about a dozen names already.</quote>

This is the very reason you are being banned, and you know it, and I believe that you deliberately started posting under multiple names to get banned when we wouldn't ban you for merely being obnoxious.  You are not being banned due to the contents of your posts.  Your dishonesty speaks for itself.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 05 2006,16:10

<u>Memo</u>

To: Panda-Management
From: Steviepinhead
Re: Posting Policy / Garbage Disposal

FYI: <b>baconboy = Larry FarFromAboveBoard</b>.

In case you're interested.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 05 2006,16:10

I thought Larry was bounced out on his ass . . . . ?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 05 2006,22:48

So Larry is waging an annoyance campaign with SciAm to rescind SciAm's award to PT.

Let's consider whether Larry is going to have much luck with that. SciAm is no stranger to controversy, and, in fact, it is in dealing with controversial topics that PT got that award. SciAm folks understand that where there is controversy, the disaffected will follow, and not all of them are going to be honest and polite about things. SciAm also has the benefit of experience with the disaffected. There was that whole Forrest Mims flap a couple of decades ago.

So I think that the likelihood that SciAm is going to take any sort of drastic action because of Larry's correspondence is pretty small. I'd be very surprised if they took any step without corresponding with the PT administration, and so far we haven't heard from them. If they do talk to us, we will point out our comment policy, document Larry's violation of it, and I really don't see how that would <b>not</b> be that. The truly tremendous record of harassment that Larry has built up since he was first banned for Rule 6 violation is overwhelming. The recent threats of further, more serious disruption of the comment system are not going to look good at all if he is trying to pass himself off as a reasonable person with only the best interests of SciAm in mind.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 06 2006,06:33

Wesly, any comments on my question a day or two ago about starting a Larry et al refutation thread here at AtBC?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 06 2006,06:39

I think that you can go ahead and start one. Posting using multiple identities is "excessively annoying" here, so there's no difference for Larry. If thread doesn't end up within the bounds of the rules here, I'll just lock it then.
Posted by: J Simes on April 06 2006,06:56

<blockquote>Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 2171 on April 4, 2006 07:44 PM (opening comment of thread)



the old board decided to go against their legal counsel and use the Thomas More Law Center, which voided their insurance and left the taxpayers with the bill.</blockquote>

I never found out exactly how the Dover School Board forfeited its lawsuit insurance coverage.      I thought maybe that one possibility was that the coverage was only for accident liability.      Anyway,   I read somewhere that the maximum coverage for legal expenses was only $100,000,   and the Dover school board probably figured that the free legal representation offered by the Thomas More Law Center was potentially worth much more than that.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright on April 06 2006,06:56

The DASD has its own, retained legal counsel, which is a common thing.  The legal insurance was tied to their retained legal counsel.  By using the TMLC at trial, they voided their insurance because it didn't cover TMLC-run litigation.  The TMLC were either never placed under retainer, or the insurer has to approve any changes in retained law firms.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 06 2006,06:56

Larry, do you have Alzheimer's?  First of all, you are banned.  Secondly, the board members explained in their depositions that they were advised by the board solicitor that by not using the board solicitor, they would void the coverage.  Thirdly, we've explained this to you multiple times.

Seriously, I've noticed a number of posts you've made in the past couple weeks where you claimed to not know about something we had previously informed you of.  If you honestly don't remember, you might want to have your doctor examine you for early signs of Alzheimer's.  Personally, I think you're lying through your teeth, but just in case...
Posted by: Steviepinhead on April 06 2006,06:56

Airhead Larry:
<quote>[T]he free legal representation offered by the Thomas More Law Center was potentially worth much more than [$100,000].
</quote>

You got that right.  As long as you ignore the <b>sign</b> in front of the sum.

The TMLC's advice was worth a cool One Million Dollars to the Dover School Board.

Unfortunately, that's a <b>negative</b> One Mil...
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on April 06 2006,06:56

thanks for the timely reminder, Lenny.

I think that analysis by WD40 typifies the predictive power of ID in general.

I'm being a bit too obvious in that observation, I'm sure.
Posted by: Anton Mates on April 06 2006,06:56

<quote author="barconboy AKA Larry Fafarman who's banned but keeps coming back under different aliases but everyone notices instantly because his arguments represent a unique brand of insanity">
<quote author="W. Kevin Vicklund">
First of all, you are banned.</quote>
Kevin, I am fed up with you. Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).</quote>

I just wanted to say that, given the subject of the thread, the above complaint is freakin' awesome.  You could power a small starship off the irony.
Posted by: k.e. on April 06 2006,06:56

Larry (you unraveling halfwit).

said

<i>It just seems strange to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company. </i>

Have you never signed a contract in your life?

Oh that's right you got to look after the engineering library while you worked, I'll bet none of of your co-workers trusted you you to even open a door!!
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on April 06 2006,06:56

<quote author="Larry">If I am “banned,“ then why don‘t you just ignore me?</quote> Larry, if you're banned, you're <i>not supposed to be here.</i>  That's what being banned <i>means.</i>

Apparently you're too ignorant to understand that, as well as being clueless that nobody <i>cares</i> what you think - everything you've ever posted has been inaccurate, inane, illogical, or simply stupid.

If you bothered to learn anything from this, you might have some hope as a human being.  But at the moment, you look much akin to a clueless, ignorant, maliciously stupid crank.

And we respond because (a) your ridiculous remarks are so astonishingly idiotic; and (b) we dislike folks who have bad manners - such as yourself.
Posted by: Raging Bee on April 06 2006,06:56

Larry the Laughable Feebleman sums up his wretched excuse for a life thusly:

<i>Generally, I do not just take people‘s word on something that seems strange to me.</i>

Does that mean you get off your ass and do ACTUAL RESEARCH to VERIFY the claims of others?  No, apparently it means you stay in your comfort zone and only take the words of people who repeat the soothing bromides you already know.

<i>...However, I had to find the reference myself — no one showed it to me.</i>

And I'm guessing no one served you breakfast in bed today, either; which is why you're so hungry and grumpy today.  Right?
Posted by: barconboy on April 06 2006,06:57

<blockquote>Comment #94994 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 5, 2006 04:26 PM

First of all, you are banned.</blockquote>
Kevin,   I am fed up with you.     Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).

If I am ``banned,``   then why don`t you just ignore me?   Instead you continue to respond to me.

<blockquote> Secondly, the board members explained in their depositions that they were advised by the board solicitor that by not using the board solicitor,   they would void the coverage. </blockquote>

Where in the depositions?     I have not been shown any references.     It just seems strange  to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company.      Generally,   I do not just take people`s word on  something that seems strange to me.    

BTW,    I finally found out how that attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion --  the trial testimony revealed that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs (though I have no idea why,  as the message was damaging to the defendants).    However,   I had to find the reference myself -- no one showed it to me.    I still think that Judge Jones should have put an explanation in the opinion.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 06 2006,07:02

For what it's worth, I think it's a shame that Larry is doing this. Internet fora like Panda's Thumb are the last holding pens for free speech. I may not agree with many of the ideas here, but at least you give your "satans" a platform for their objections. I'd hate to see this board become more restrictive due to security concerns. What makes this doubly ironic is the fact that Larry is, apparently, a holocaust denier - a belief that has been legislated out of existence in many countries. Yet he wishes to quash other people's speech.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 06 2006,07:34

<quote>Kevin, I am fed up with you. Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).

If I am “banned,“ then why don‘t you just ignore me? Instead you continue to respond to me.</quote>

You have only yourself to blame for being banned.  I tried to point out that you were violating the rules, I even gave you an incentive to stop violating the rules, something I might point out no one else did, and you threw it in my face.  You knew - you had been specifically <i>warned</i> - you were violating the rules and that it would eventually lead to a ban.

Frankly, I wish you hadn't deliberately gotten yourself banned.  I had fun demolishing your arguments with detailed, factual arguments of my own.  So I'm pissed that I have to stew and let you post your lies, distortions, and ignorant statements without being allowed to refute them, lest I also get a ban.  The only recourse I have left is to get your posts removed.  I'd much rather dispute them freely.  (Note to moderators - this is not a criticism of PT's excellent standards)

<quote>Where in the depositions? I have not been shown any references. It just seems strange to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company. Generally, I do not just take people‘s word on something that seems strange to me.</quote>

Check out the depostions found at the NCSE webpage.  I think Nilsen and Baksa made them (it's been a whilesince I looked at the depositions), but they are in a format I can't simply cut and paste.  Besides, there are many other sources that explain why the company would restrict coverage from outside representation.

<quote>BTW, I finally found out how that attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion — the trial testimony revealed that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs (though I have no idea why, as the message was damaging to the defendants). However, I had to find the reference myself — <b>no one showed it to me</b>. I still think that Judge Jones should have put an explanation in the opinion.<i>emphasis added</i></quote>

You lie.  I know which references you are referring to, and I personally posted them here several months ago.  Besides, all you had to do to get that information was to resume posting under the rules.  In fact, the Judge did make an implicit explanation of how the plaintiffs got it and how the priviledge was waived.
Posted by: k.e. on April 06 2006,10:33

Larry u D_kH__d

The dishonest lying outfit of snake-oil salesmen, fakes, hucksters and cheats   who were put on the witness stand ALL revealed their lies to the court when questioned under oath ....the judge smacked them down ...get it ?

It's pretty tough to re-write history WHEN ITS ALREADY HAPPENED.

The DI going on the attack? hahhahahahahhaha
That has all the intellectual rigor and scaryness of a bunch of wet lettuce leaves attacking a truck.

Lying Larry Get over it.
Posted by: beervolcano on April 06 2006,18:35

< http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060406/ts_nm/religion_judas_dc_2 >

'Gospel of Judas' gives new view of Jesus' betrayer


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday.

In an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching, the Judas gospel shows the reviled disciple as the only one in Jesus' inner circle who understood his desire to shed his earthly body.

"He's the good guy in this portrayal," said Bart Ehrman, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "He's the only apostle who understands Jesus."

The Judas gospel's introduction says it is "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." Later, it quotes Jesus as saying to Judas, "You will exceed all of them (the other disciples) for you will sacrifice the man who clothes me."

"The idea in this gospel is that Jesus, like all of us, is a trapped spirit, who is trapped in a material body," Ehrman said. "And salvation comes when we escape the materiality of our existence, and Judas is the one who makes it possible for him to escape by allowing for his body to be killed."


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



So Judas isn't a traitor afterall.
What else have Christians got wrong?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 08 2006,05:52

<quote>You are lying. I was banned before I ever violated Rule 6 or any other PT rule. </quote>



Can someone spray some Larry-B-Gone, please?


Thanks.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 08 2006,14:31

By popular demand, the Mike Baksa news clip has been moved here...

The poor week for antievolution shows no sign of letting up. The <url href="http://www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_3686995">York Daily Record reports</url> that Dover Schools Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa was charged with "driving under the influence" and several other traffic violations for a one-car accident that occurred on January 31st, 2006. The school district is taking this as a personnel matter. Baksa testified as a fact witness for the defense in the <i>Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District</i> case in 2005.

(The reporter on this story is Mike Argento. For those of us who waited with impatience for his hilarious send-ups of the "breathtaking inanity" revealed in the KvD case each week, this report shows clearly that Argento does straight reporting well, too.)
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 09 2006,19:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The reporter on this story is Mike Argento. For those of us who waited with impatience for his hilarious send-ups of the "breathtaking inanity" revealed in the KvD case each week, this report shows clearly that Argento does straight reporting well, too.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When he's awake, < second post down. >

Bob
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 09 2006,20:45

actual;y, I found his list of comparisons between Jesus and DeLay to be amusing, if not completely original.

I particularly liked this one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus rolled back the rock; DeLay crawled out from under one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yup.

DeLay opitmizes all of the modern "right" that vexes me so.

The problem is, once one of these idiots self implodes, like DeLay now has, they just get replaced with another of similar "quality".

*sigh*

think about it:

has there been a leader of the republican house or senate that hasn't stepped down due to some scandal of their own making in the last 15 years?

moral majority?  well, i guess so, considering they seem so ubiquitous.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 12 2006,06:56

Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread.  Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 12 2006,07:45

Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ April 12 2006,11:56)
Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread. Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They now appear to have excised him again.

So he actually made some posts under your name? He only threatened to post under my name.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on April 12 2006,08:17

Not my name, I believe it was sir_toejam's name he posted under.  It was on a little used thread about to drop off the front page at the time he did it - it was what prompted Wesley to enforce the ban.  I think, but am not sure, that it was in the Feb 15 Dan Ely thread, but the posts were deleted.
Posted by: sir_toejam on April 12 2006,08:25

see?  now you know why i maintain such a ridiculous name.

'cause it makes IDiots want to use it for themselves.

er, wait...

let me get back to you.
Posted by: beervolcano on April 13 2006,11:24

I like to go to this site from time to time to get a nice chuckle and see how someone can twist logic and argue against evolution from the typical creationist standpoint.
The little [sic] things all over get really annoying though.

< http://creationsafaris.com/crev200604.htm#20060412a >

Here they ignore the fact that there are 18 viable pathways for the mutations to grant the bug resistance to antibiotics, but that's not the funny part.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They aret talking about adding new genetic information or function, but rather losing function (susceptibility to the antiobiotic) in such a manner that each stage doesnt kill all of the organisms in one fell swoop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right. A function of the bacteria was to die when it met a particular antibiotic. The mutations made the bug LOSE this function of death. See? Mutations only degrade the genome, no matter what, period.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this principle applies, as they suggested, to larger scales of biological organization, then the neo-Darwinian gig is, for all practical purposes, over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know what they mean by "larger scales" when they talk about missense mutations, but whatever. I just think it's funny that they say "if there are only 18 ways to get there, then Darwin is done."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This makes the protein tape of life predictable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, that's what they said, ain't it?


Friggin creationists.
Posted by: Morgan-LynnLamberth on April 15 2006,07:13

yes.
Posted by: KiwiInOz on April 15 2006,07:15

Been home with a waitress lately, Lenny?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 15 2006,07:16

<quote>Been home with a waitress lately, Lenny?</quote>


How was I to know she was with the Russians too?

:)
Posted by: afdave on April 17 2006,04:58

I'm new to Panda's Thumb, but I'm thoroughly impressed at the excellent job you guys are doing helping to promote the ID and YEC causes.  This is a PRO-ID, PRO-YEC blog, right?  I figured it is because I didn't think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed.  My conclusion?  Either this is a Pro-Darwinist blog and you Darwinists are running REALLY SCARED, or this blog is a stealth ID/YEC blog.  Hmmmm...
Posted by: wamba on April 17 2006,04:58

<quote>
I didn’t think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed.
</quote>
Perhaps you didn't notice that hateful, bombastic pro-ID fulminations are also allowed here. I guess you're not familiar with the concept of "free speech", probably because it's not compatible with your worldview. Nonetheless, whether you can accept this "free speech" concept or not, you should educate yourself about it so that you can recognize it when others apply and promote it.
Posted by: afdave on April 17 2006,04:58

I understand free speech quite well and I also understand Stupid Strategy and I'm really glad that Darwinists are employing it!
Posted by: afdave on April 17 2006,04:58

<b>hateful, bombastic pro-ID fulminations </b> ??

I couldn't find any ... maybe if you  pointed them out to me, I could find them ...
Posted by: minimalist on April 17 2006,04:58

Try a Ctrl-F search for posts by "afdave".
Posted by: wamba on April 17 2006,04:58

<quote>
I understand free speech quite well
</quote>
Whether or not you understand it, you certainly rely on it, which makes it quite hypocritical for you to criticise it.
Posted by: Mike Z on April 17 2006,04:58

afdave is a blatant troll.  Please ignore.
Posted by: improvius on April 17 2006,04:58

<quote author="afdave">I understand free speech quite well</quote>

Then maybe you could do us a favor and explain it to the good folks at UD.
Posted by: afdave on April 17 2006,04:58

<b>afdave is a blatant troll. Please ignore.</b>

Yes, that's right ... ignore me just as Mike Z is by calling me a blatant troll.  Funny definition of 'ignore' ...
Posted by: harold on April 17 2006,05:07

Afdave -

I'll feed you once.  

Here's what you wrote -

"I’m new to Panda’s Thumb, but I’m thoroughly impressed at the excellent job you guys are doing helping to promote the ID and YEC causes. This is a PRO-ID, PRO-YEC blog, right? I figured it is because I didn’t think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed. My conclusion? Either this is a Pro-Darwinist blog and you Darwinists are running REALLY SCARED, or this blog is a stealth ID/YEC blog. Hmmmm…"

Now, how can I or anyone else respond to that?  None of the "fulminations" in question are even identified, let alone addressed logically.  Ironically, you appear to be guilty of the very crime you accuse others of.  It is your post which is free of all content except insult.

The tone of pro-science posts here ranges from extremely politeness to clever, civil satire (with the occasional mild insult used rarely, in frustration).  The tone creationist drive-by posts tends to be like yours - unprovoked insult, without any effort to address the actual issues.  Not very Christian.  And then you tend to run away <sound of chickens clucking/><flaps arms to imitate chicken wings/>.

Do you have anythig relevant to contribute?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,13:33

Hey Sal, did you forget my questions for you already?  No problem.  As always, I'm happy to post them again.  And again and again and again, every time you show your face here, until you either answer them or run away (again).

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness  -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too.  Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6.  What did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.  Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?


9.  Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?


10.  How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

11.  Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

12.  Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13.  Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?  

14.  Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

16.  > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.

Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

17.  >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

18.  >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19.  >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20.  >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21.  >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22.  >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23.  > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24.  >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25.  >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26.  >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28.  >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

29.  > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

30.  >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31.  >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.


32.  BTW, what observer do you think collapses the Designer's wavefunction and, uh, brings it into existence?

Wigner's Superfriend?



Any time you're ready, Sal, you just let me know, OK?


Coward.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,13:33

Hey Sal, you cowardly blowhard, are you gonna answer my questions for you, or aren't you?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,13:34

<quote>  I wish there would be more attempts to force them to answer first-principles questions, or be shown to fail to do so, as in fact would happen every time.</quote>

Well gee, how many hundreds of times have I asked Sal (and Nelson, and Beckwith, and Heddle, and every other IDiot who comes here) my simple questions?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,13:37

[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

<quote>  I wish there would be more attempts to force them to answer first-principles questions, or be shown to fail to do so, as in fact would happen every time.</quote>

Well gee, how many hundreds of times have I asked Sal (and Nelson, and Beckwith, and Heddle, and every other IDiot who comes here) my simple questions?
Posted by: afdave on April 17 2006,14:22

I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' ... I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources.  I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief.  Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why ... very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it ... try explaining it nicely and politely.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,17:20

Hey Sal, are you gonna answer any of my questions, or aren't you?

Coward.


Bring your buddy Paul Nelson along.  I have a few unanswered questions for him, too.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 17 2006,17:21

What's bringing all the nutters here all of a sudden?  Spring mating ritual or something?
Posted by: Satan on April 18 2006,05:29

God does not exist.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:27

<quote> You should be one to make claims about being forthright. </quote>

Speaking of a lack of forthrightness, Sal, when do you plan on answering all those questions that you ran away from the last time we met?  Forget them already?  No problem -- I'm happy to repost again.  And again and again and again, as many times as I need to until you answer them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness  -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too.  Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6.  What did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.  Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?


9.  Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?


10.  How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

11.  Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

12.  Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13.  Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?  

14.  Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

16.  > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.

Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

17.  >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

18.  >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19.  >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20.  >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21.  >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22.  >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23.  > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24.  >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25.  >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26.  >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28.  >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

29.  > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

30.  >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31.  >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.


32.  BTW, what observer do you think collapses the Designer's wavefunction and, uh, brings it into existence?

Wigner's Superfriend?




Any time you're ready, Sal, you just let me know.  OK?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:28

Hey Sal, are you gonna answer my simple questions, or aren't you?

Put up or shut up, coward.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:30

<quote>HaHa, see what happens when you get steamed up? </quote>

Dude, if you got "steamed up" from what *I* just said to you, then . . .  well . . . wow.  Just, wow.

You have no idea at all what you are in for.  Not the foggiest #### clue.

It is not going to be pretty.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:30

<quote>Possibly the seminar will enable some students enamored by the “teach the controversy” meme to see that there is no controversy, anymore than there is over “flat earth”.</quote>


Well, let's see . . . .


<quote>  Odd. I thought scientific disputes were “won or lost” on the basis of empirical evidence. My bad… </quote>



Looks like . . . . . Nope.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:30

<quote>I became a Quaker and a conscientious objector against the Vietnam War partly because I disagreed with statements like yours. And I became an evolutionary biologist because I valued facts and reasoned arguments more than opinions or political demagoguery. Clearly, you value the opposite.</quote>

Well, my naive friend, those IDers are going to mop the floor with you.  (shrug)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 18 2006,17:31

<quote>Odd. I thought scientific disputes were “won or lost” on the basis of empirical evidence. </quote>

Right.  But, uh, ID/evolution is not a scientific dispute.

(sigh)  Like I said, the crashing naivete of some scientists just amazes me.
Posted by: Kevin from nyc on April 18 2006,17:37

what is a "evolutionary psychologist?"

I really can't see that ID is worth teaching in school.  Can't you get enough of that stuff in church?
Posted by: Anton Mates on April 19 2006,06:23

<quote author="MartinM">
Dunesong: funny you should mention that, given that Psiaki also wrote this…
<quote>Behavioral sciences seem to have clear limits too. Why have we made huge progress on treating heart disease and minimal progress on treating mental disorders? One can’t help but wonder whether we are coming up against a limit of science. Of course, the people with a vested interest in the research and clinical treatment dollars associated with mental disorders will never admit that there are fundamental limits to their science, but the rest of the public suspects that they are not to be totally trusted on this matter.</quote></quote>
Maybe Psiaki's just bitter because his mental disorder was never successfully treated.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 25 2006,15:24

I'm going with "deceptive dishonest evasive cowardly blowhard".
Posted by: J. Biggs on April 25 2006,15:24

Stupid is kind of harsh, I think willfully ignorant is more appropriate.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on May 12 2006,11:02

Larry's back again.  Larry, won't you ever learn that your behavior is unethical?  And stupid?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on May 12 2006,11:02

Hi Larry!  Still trying to advance the same arguments Colin destroyed on your blog (with a little help from moi)?

This is pure sock-puppetry, Tim.  It's either Larry himself (looks like it based on word choice and style) or someone voluntarily sock-puppetting for him by advancing the same arguments he has been trying to advance.  Either way...
Posted by: ben on May 12 2006,11:02

<blockquote>It is very unethical of commenters here to attack Larry Fafarman by name when he is unable to defend himself here because he has been banned.</blockquote>There's nothing about the fact that you got banned from PT for repeated ethical violations--like coming back under a multitude of fake names like the present one--that makes it "unethical" to <b>refer</b> to the fact that it happened.  This reference is not an attack, it's a citation of known fact. Getting yourself banned doesn't make it wrong to talk about you.  Why would you even think that? If you wanted to be able to defend yourself, you should have followed the rules like everyone else.  There are a lot of other cranks here who manage to stay on for years without any banning becoming necessary.  You made you bed, now sleep in it.

See ya at the bathroom wall, schmuck.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaugther on May 12 2006,11:02

<quote author="Larry the unethical">Kevin, you have some nerve. You go over to Larry‘s blog and post freely, but when somebody tries to post Larry‘s ideas here, you try to have those ideas censored. You have no shame. The same goes for Rilke‘s Granddaughter.</quote> But it's not <i>someone</i> trying to post Larry's ideas here, Larry - it's the fact that <i>you</i> are posting your ideas here; in violation of the ban; using a technique that guarantees the ban will stay in place forever.

I admire your policy of not censoring comments on your blog; although you post as a sock-puppet over there as well, I notice.

You are unethical and remarkably stupid in your own interests.  Give it a rest, Larry.
Posted by: Pizza Woman on May 12 2006,11:02

Sho' nuff does <b><i>whine</i></b> like that li'l Larry feller...
Posted by: Kevin on May 12 2006,11:02

<quote>The new board members were elected for the sole purpose of getting rid of the ID policy and trying to eliminate or reduce the school district‘s financial liability in the lawsuit.</quote>

This is an utter fabrication. The elected candidates were part of the <url href="http://www.dovercares.org/">Dover CARES</url> slate, for whom the ID policy was just one of a number of issues and definitely not the most significant one.

<quote>Repeal of the ID policy in December would have put the Dover school district back in the same situation as hundreds or thousands of other school districts across the USA , i.e., no existing ID policy but the possibility of enactment of an ID policy in the future, so the Dover school district‘s situation would have no longer been special. Arguably, the “voluntary cessation“ doctrine should apply only where the plaintiff is uniquely threatened by the challenged action.</quote>

Isn't this kind of like saying that someone out on parole after committing manslaughter is no different from someone who's never committed a crime? Try telling a judge that!
Posted by: ben on May 12 2006,11:02

It's hilarious that Larry refers to himself in the third person, as though to maintain the fiction that there is actually a unique individual calling himself Knucklehead Smiff, but then freely refers to the content of KS's post as "Larry's ideas."  Larry isn't even self-aware enough to realize that if he wanted the sock puppet to have even the slightest semblance of independence from Larry Fafarman, he would need to defend the ideas posted under KS' name as belonging to KS--as any normal person would in trying to carry off such a lame and dishonest deception.  

While the content of Larry's endless, pedantic and demonstrably incorrect ranting never fails to fail to be interesting, the psychology of this lonely, obsessive creep does hold a measure of undeniable fascination.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on May 12 2006,11:05

Hi Larry!

Douchebag.
Posted by: Betsy Markum on May 13 2006,13:00

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11703.  Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: steve s on May 14 2006,14:05

every few times i come to PT, it hangs my browser up for 10 seconds doing god knows what
Posted by: stevestory on May 14 2006,14:16

it would be useful to ask other PT visitors if they're getting this weird and annoying problem.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 14 2006,14:39

Then start a "Problems with PT delivery" thread here.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

Hi there, Carol.  Long time no preach, eh?
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Hi there, Lenny. How have you been?

Quite frankly, there wasn't much of interest happening on PT lately.

You know very well that I do not preach. I persuade. I convince. Remember, I am not party to that religion that proslytizes.
Posted by: Coin on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote author="Carol Clouser, internet street preacher">You know very well that I do not preach. I persuade. I convince. Remember, I am not party to that religion that proslytizes.</quote>
So: When <i>they</i> do it, it's proslytizing. When <i>I</i> do it, it's "persuading".

It seems Carol treats the definitions of words in English the same way she sees the definitions of words in Hebrew: as a very flexible sort of silly putty that can be used to cheat at arguments with.

Speaking of which, what the heck is an "over-killing"?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Hi there, Lenny. How have you been?</quote>


I've been just fine, Carol.  

<quote>Quite frankly, there wasn’t much of interest happening on PT lately.</quote>

Then why do you stay?


<quote>You know very well that I do not preach. </quote>


Riiiggggghhhhhttttttt.

Why are you here, then?  Book sales down?

<quote>I persuade. I convince.
</quote>


"I pinch".
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>I persuade. I convince.</quote>

Reaaaalllyyyyy.

Anyone here who has been persuaded or convinced by Carol, in the slightest amount whatseover, please raise your hand.

Gee, Carol, apparently you, uh, don't.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 14 2006,17:21

That is what I really don't get about Carol, that she claims to be Jewish, and comes in here preaching to the gentiles, trying to "persuade" us of the rightness of her narrow sectarianism, <i>and</i> of how it really only belongs to the Jews.  I'm guessing that the Jews she knows are really tired of her.

In NYC I was always happy to be able to tell proselytizing little Jewish boys that I am not Jewish.  One reason only:  they'd completely leave me alone and go bother some poor ethnic Semite who obviously didn't really want to be bothered any more than I did.  I'm sorry for the Jewish person, of course, but it's the ol' "at least I'm rid of the Jewish equivalent of JWs" idea.

On PT, though, we have preacher Carol blathering on about nonsense that we don't care about, alternately telling us that the Bible isn't really ours (so shut up already--most of us wouldn't claim it if we could), and that it is really correct about everything, so worthy of notice by, I guess, everyone.  She's either not Jewish, or she doesn't understand her own religion.

Btw, Carol, there is nothing at all new about the fact that "day" in Genesis can mean "period of time" or "era".  Jews know it, gentiles know it, and intelligent people recognize that "day" is meant in the first chapter from the context.  It sure reveals hubris for you to come on here telling people "what Hebrew really says," when it's old knowledge in both Xian and Jewish communities--and obviously outside of there as well.  

Well, there you are, I guess Carol is just one of those things that Jews have to put up with.  Because however annoying she is to the rest of us, at least she isn't speaking "for us" in her cluelessness.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright on May 14 2006,17:21

<b>I know this isn't a serious post, but can we please try to stay on topic?</b>
Posted by: Andrew McClure on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>I know this isn’t a serious post, but can we please try to stay on topic?</quote>

I'll do my best!

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the <b>Judah Landa</b> <b>Judah Landa</b> Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the <b>Judah Landa</b> Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of <b>Judah Landa</b>. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Glad to see that all is well at PT and that all the old hands are still ready as ever to emerge from the woodwork at the mere sighting of someone like myself.


Coin,

"Preaching" and "proslytizong" imply a one-sided presentation, whereas "persuading" and "convincing" are normally a consequence of a genuine give-and-take interaction between consenting adults.

By this standard, many of the vociferous anti-preaching characters here are themselves constantly preaching. Chief among them is the Good Rev. Lenny.
Posted by: Moses on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Comment #100485

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 11, 2006 09:15 PM (e)

Anyone here who has been persuaded or convinced by Carol, in the slightest amount whatseover, please raise your hand.

Gee, Carol, apparently you, uh, don’t.</quote>

I have.  She has persuaded me she's just another card-board cut-out who pontificates her "scholarly" knowledge while remaining vastly ignorant about the origins of her religion.  To face these issues would likely destroy her knowledge-based "faith" and cast her adrift on the seas of reality with no support.  And from here it'd get deeply psychological and I don't feel like it today.

And she's not the only one.  Dealing with the historical underpinnings of the Jewish faith has been problematic for Jews, Christians and Muslims.  The various Jewish divisions (orthodox, conservative, reform) are, to-date, are the best of the three evolved Ugartic-Pantheistic-Origin religions at recognizing that whole parts of their scriptures are just made-up or co-opted stories.  They're also much better at admitting how much re-writing went on to reconcile the not-very-similar religious beliefs of Judah and Israel.

OTOH, my experience is that most Christian & Islamic scholars, however, treat the origins their faith as radioactive.  While it's better than 100 years ago when talking about it could destroy your career, there is too much resistance to non-affirming study/interpretation of the many incredible strides in our understanding of the origins of the Jewish faith and its natural implications for Christianity and Islam.  i.e., denial will not be denied!
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Parse,

Glad to find someone here rational enough to see the obvious merit in what I wrote.

And I acutally agree with your observation that frequently progress in science is based on modification instead of the overturning of previously held views. But often that is not the case. There has been a lot of "overturning" going on in science. In the very example you cite, the laws of motion, there are elements of overturning. For example, prior to Einstein motion was viewed as an absolute quantity, today it is a relative quantity. The entire edifice of deterministic physics was overturned into probabilistic laws by quantum mechanics. These are just the tip of the iceberg.


Moses,

For your information, although it is none of your business and has nothing to do with my post above, I have in the course of my life spent much time probing into the origins of the religion I was born into and have carefully and even agonizingly considered the views of all the pontificators on the matter. My current views on those origins are the result of my considered analysis of those views and the status of the pertinent evidence.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote> For example, prior to Einstein motion was viewed as an absolute quantity, today it is a relative quantity. </quote>

Really Carol?  Try to explain Newton's laws of motion as "absolute".  Actually, try to explain anything in science in an intelligible manner, and if you do it I'll be surprised.

Now see, if you knew anything about science you'd know that there are significant and highly important continuities between Newton's work and Einstein's.  In fact, Einstein is considered to be the last true heir of Newton.

The truth is that very much in science hasn't changed at all, not functionally, from momentum to gravity.  The explanations for "laws" and the like have changed, but not the equations.  You learn that when you get a good education.

<quote>The entire edifice of deterministic physics was overturned into probabilistic laws by quantum mechanics. </quote>

Not in the classical realm.  We could hardly do what we do if physics didn't average out to being nearly deterministic (and don't cavil that it isn't absolutely deterministic--everyone knowledgeable knows that already) in the macro realm.  Just once I'd like you to say something noticeably correct, Carol.  I don't know who you get your nonsense from, yet it is clear that you get your information from people who know little more than do you.

<quote>For your information, although it is none of your business and has nothing to do with my post above, I have in the course of my life spent much time probing into the origins of the religion I was born into and have carefully and even agonizingly considered the views of all the pontificators on the matter. My current views on those origins are the result of my considered analysis of those views and the status of the pertinent evidence.</quote>

Yes, Carol.  You called Afdave's "answer" to who Adam's children married "speculation", and your answer was equally speculative--based on nothing other than unsubstantiated myth.  There is no indication that you have studied anything well.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Spike on May 14 2006,17:21

This is why I love religionists. No matter what they say, you can respond with the mirror image of it and it's just as true!

This is also why I don't disagree with believers who say that evolution is not incompatible with their religion. Since their religion is wholly invented in the first place, then compatibility with reality is like turning on and off a light - purely a matter of choice.
Posted by: Coin on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote author="Carol Clouser, internet street preacher">Glad to see that all is well at PT and that all the old hands are still ready as ever to emerge from the woodwork at the mere sighting of someone like myself.</quote>

"Someone like yourself"? You mean, a spammer?

<quote>“Preaching” and “proslytizong” imply a one-sided presentation, whereas “persuading” and “convincing” are normally a consequence of a genuine give-and-take interaction between consenting adults.</quote>

Between this and your "I am not party to that religion that proslytizes" comment in the previous post (which, though vague, hardly seems as if could be reasonably taken as anything other than a reference to Christianity), it really sounds a lot like you are suggesting by implication that "geniuine give-and-take interaction between consenting adults" is something which you believe people of your religion do-- and Christians <b>don't</b>.

I find the apparent presence of this implication extremely interesting.
Posted by: Parse on May 14 2006,17:21

Carol,
Thanks for the complement; simply because I disagree with some of what you say, doesn't mean that I should discard everything that you say.
I must warn you, though, I chose an example from the field of physics rather than biology because physics is closer to my "home turf" - my field of knowledge.  With that in mind, I'm afraid I have to disagree about the degree of importance you place on the examples you used.  
Your first example, in terms of motion being absolute versus relative, is relatively minor.  Physics is notorious for using different frames of reference; mainly this is done to make the calculating numbers easier.  As an example, take playing pool on a moving train.  When you line up a shot, you don't factor in the train's speed to that of the balls.  When Newton calculated paths for objects (at least, objects on Earth), he did not factor in the motion of the Earth, though he knew the planet it was on is moving through space.
If, instead of that definition of relative, you mean dealing with relativistic speeds, the formulas used for calculating such speeds are not greatly different from those of non-relativistic speeds.  In fact, when the velocity is not a considerable fraction of the speed of light, the portions of the formula which depend upon relativistic speeds become essentially zero, and you are left with the original Newtonian formulas for velocity.

In terms of quantum mechanics, though, you're opening a different can of worms.  I can go into a whole long explanation of it, but in essence it 'replaced' Newtonian physics only on the atomic and subatomic levels.  This is not because Newtonian physics no longer worked on this scale, but rather that scientists recognized that with the tools they have, trying to measure stats such as position or velocity on such a small scale would affect what was being studied.  (This can be compared to taking the temperature of a thimbleful of water with a thermometer the size of a bottle of water - you can get a temperature, but the water's temperature will be affected by the thermometer itself.)  For more information, on this, I would recommend reading the <url href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History">Wikipedia</url> article, or I can attempt to answer your questions via email.

The main thing these changes in physics have in common are that facts existed that caused the existing system to not work properly.  In this aspect, it's significantly different from biology, in that physics it's a lot easier to find and test formulas, whereas in biology, life is a lot more unpredictable.  The problem I have with Intelligent Design in this context is that ID is used as a starting point of a problem with macroevolution, rather than problem cases are found within evolution, and ID is proposed as a solution.  

While major theory overthrows can happen in science, they occur to either fix an existing problem in most or all cases (such as the elimination of <url href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether">luminiferous aether</url>, or to provide a simpler explanation which is supported by all of the facts.  As far as I have seen, Intelligent Design does neither.
Posted by: ben on May 14 2006,17:21

How does claiming membership in a religion that supposedly does not proselytize immunize one from being accused of it?  If you're doing it, you're doing it, whatever club you might belong to.  And constantly trying to refer everyone you talk to to your supposedly holy book and convince them of the absolute truth of it is proselytizing if it's anything.  You desperately want us to believe as you do, you actively try to make it so, you're proselytizing.  Drop the charade.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Ben,

My point was that I am here to engage in conversation with people who are willing to reciprocate. That is not preaching. But when Lenny repeats his mantras over and over again knowing full well that they will not be answered, that IS preaching.


Parse,

You seem to be going back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing with what I wrote. Nevertheless, a few comments are in order.

Quantum Mechanics overturned and contradicts classical physics in may ways with MACROSCOPIC consequences. Classically an electron in an atom can have any amount of energy, quantum mechanically it is restricted to certain values. The macroscopic consequences of that, such as the spectra of the atoms, are obvious. Classically an electron in an atom must radiate its energy away, thereby collapsing the atom, quantum mechanically that is not so. Classically you cannot get to a point on the other side of a potential energy barrier if it is too high, quantum mechanically you can "tunnel through" and find yourself on the other side. The probability of this happenning might be very small, depending on conditions, but it is not impossible.

Newton's laws were predicated on their being applicable to all inertial frames of reference. As such they DO NOT work on earth, as is obvious by looking at the stars from earth and applying those laws. But to determine whether a frame is inertial we had to see if the laws worked. This circular reasoning worked so long as only acceleration showed up in the laws. When Maxwell's equations included velocity (such as the term V X B) the whole scheme collapsed and an absolute velocity was postulated based on the aether. Einstein disposed of this. These are all macroscopic issues of fundamental importance as is evidenced from the Michaelson Interferometer experiments.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>I have in the course of my life spent much time probing into the origins of the religion I was born into and have carefully and even agonizingly considered the views of all the pontificators on the matter. My current views on those origins are the result of my considered analysis of those views and the status of the pertinent evidence.</quote>

That's nice.

And why, again, should anyone else give a flying fig about your opinions on the matter?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>when Lenny repeats his mantras over and over again knowing full well that they will not be answered, that IS preaching.</quote>


Yep.  It's preaching "Carol's religious opinions aren't any better than anyone else's."  Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug)

You could, of course, demonstrate that to be wrong simply by, uh, ANSWERING them.  


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . .
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Newton’s laws were predicated on their being applicable to all inertial frames of reference. As such they DO NOT work on earth, as is obvious by looking at the stars from earth and applying those laws. But to determine whether a frame is inertial we had to see if the laws worked. This circular reasoning worked so long as only acceleration showed up in the laws. When Maxwell’s equations included velocity (such as the term V X B) the whole scheme collapsed and an absolute velocity was postulated based on the aether. Einstein disposed of this. These are all macroscopic issues of fundamental importance as is evidenced from the Michaelson Interferometer experiments.</quote>

Yes, Carol, in that sense you're correct.  But when you're discussing the equations and conception of motion, little has changed.  The idea of ether was merely a stop-gap on the larger scale, and perhaps more importantly, no one knew the "absolute" reference given by the ether.  Attempts to discover it were unsuccessful.

My point is that there is a considerable continuity between Galilean and Einsteinian relativity.  You're trying to make the different conceptualizations and models of the relativistic treatments of motion that has always existed in modern physics as if they are sharp breaks in the "axioms" of science, as written here:

<quote>“Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor.</quote>

The fact is that much in physics has not been overturned, including Newtonian laws of (relative--though an absolute frame of reference could be added in) motion.  The hypothesized ether was not an "axiom".  Closer to an "axiom" would be Newton's laws, and many of these remain unchanged, even by QM.  We do not need relativists claiming that science does not stand up well--it stands far better than anything else.

But of course we don't really have axioms in science, apart from the axioms of mathematics.  And more importantly, we can indeed "prove" our basic "assumptions" through "inter-subjective" means.  Relativists and fundamentalists (who indeed are almost always relativists by seeking to make words into absolutes) try to deny the solidity of science, of perception, of relational agreement.  They thereby falsify the world and everything in it, including their sacred texts.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson on May 14 2006,17:21

Carol,
Glen and Parse have already given nice answers, but I want to give my perspective as well.

Classic mechanics corresponds to relativity at low velocities, relativity didn't overturn the old theory. That the magnetic field is a low velocity relativity effect in Maxwell's equations were only realised after relativity come, and that didn't overturn the old theory.

Classic mechanics corresponds to quantum mechanics at large masses or dimensions, quantum mechanics didn't overturn the old theory. A quantum systems wavefunction develops causally and deterministically until decoherence, the statistical nature didn't overturn the old theory.

As a matter of fact, since classical systems diverge exponentially and quantum systems linearly, it is *harder* to get a quantum system to exhibit the chaos and entropy of a coarsegrained classical system. The coarsegrained probabilistic nature of classical systems are naturally mixed with the finegrained probabilistic nature of quantum systems, quantum mechanics probabilistics didn't overturn classical probabilistics.

So who am I to overturn your old thinking systems. ;-)
Posted by: Moses on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>I have in the course of my life spent much time probing into the origins of the religion I was born into and have carefully and even agonizingly considered the views of all the pontificators on the matter. My current views on those origins are the result of my considered analysis of those views and the status of the pertinent evidence.</quote>

I really doubt it.  Oh, sure, no doubt you've agonized over which confirmation bias to select.  But to honestly pursue anything that might cause you to accept that the Jewish religion is nothing more than a derivative religion of a prior Canaanite/Phoenician religion that existed prior to the Jews becoming a distinct cultural group from their Arab cousins?  Make me laugh.

It's obviously a re-written religion that begged, borrowed & stole from other religions to flesh itself out.  One of the most commonly referred to sources of origin include the <i><b>Epic of Gilgamesh</b></i> from which is derived:

1.  Creation of man in a wonderful garden.
2.  Introduction of evil into the world.
3.  The great flood story.

The events in Exodus is completely made up.  The Jews did not escape, though their progenitors (whom the Egyptians called the Hyskos) were thrown out over 300 years PRIOR to the supposed events of Exodus.

However, the whole "let my enslaved people go, 40-years in the desert" are just garbage and smells like propaganda to cover the embarrassment of being kicked out of Egypt (because they were assholes) for good 300 years prior.  The entire Sinai peninsula is dotted with old Egyptian forts that were constructed within one day's walk of each other and Egyptians, having had so many problems with their north-eastern neighbors, patrolled these areas.  No way you hide a crowd of 600,000 refugees in an area so heavily fortified and patrolled.  

Add in there is no archaeological evidence of this great trek, despite the Sinai should be awash with artifacts - graves, debris, bones of quail, tons of night soil in makeshift latrines...  And it's not like nobody looks.  Oh, quite the contrary.  They look like crazy.  Christian archaeologists, seeking to prove the Bible, pour over that part of the world.  Nada.

Some other "Old Testament" problem details:

And the 10 plagues?  Except for the brutal murdering of the Egyptian children, for which there's no record or proof, they're all otherwise normal Nile events.  Jericho?  Abandoned at least over a century before the Jews got there because of a water problem.  Exodus does a good job of describing some of it's ruins, which remain, but there's no sign of battle and many other very important details about the ruins (and story) are fatally wrong.  And what about the camels?  The camel wasn't domesticated during the age of patriarchs and weren't used as a riding beast until about 1000 BC.  Yet, there they are.  Being ridden around and delivering cargo.  It's as bad as the Book of Mormon and it's "iron sword" over a 1000 years before man learned to use iron, as well as it's missing livestock (cattle, horses, sheep, etc...) and it's mythical civilization's complete absence from the archaeological record.

Anyway, had you looked, all these issues, and many, many more would have presented themselves.  And you'd be forced to make a choice.  Continue to believe in lies and propaganda or believe the solid archaeological evidence.

So, I don't care what you believe.  I don't, in real life, listen to your childish pontifications about religion that expose you for an apologist hack living in denial.  And if you choose to waste your life that way, it's fine by me.  However, the bible has nothing of merit to say of the origins of life or the diversification of species.  And even it's moral lessons are, at best, ambiguous and dysfunctional.  So, just keep it out of my face and out of my children's schools.  We're not interested in your outdated Bronze Age mentality.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>even it’s moral lessons are, at best, ambiguous</quote>

Actually, ALL moral lessons are, of necessity, ambiguous. They *have* to be.  After all, there is NO rule or principle that is universally applicable.  Even within such secular "moral lessons" as Grimm's Fairy Tales or Aesop's Fables, we find ambiguity.  We find "Look before you leap", but we also find "He who hesitates is lost".  We find "Haste makes waste", but we also find "A stitch in time saves nine."  Contradictory?  Not really --- they simply reflect the fact that situations differ, and no hard and fast rule can be apllied to all.  Like the Bible, these moral lessons depend on *us* to pick the one that is most applicable.  When fundies say they are "following the Bible", they are quite wrong --- they are simply choosing the parts of this ambiguity that they have already decided upon.  The Bible doesn't tell them what to do --- it simply allows them to justify what they have already decided to do.  Just like Aesop's fables.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Except for the brutal murdering of the Egyptian children</quote>


This myth motif was also used in the story of Moses's birth (the pharoah had decreed that Israeli children be killed, which is how Moses came to be placed on the Nile and found by Pharoah's daughter), and was also used in the description of Christ's birth (the Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod).  

In both of these cases, of course, there likewise isn't a shred of evidence that it actually happened.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>The Jews did not escape, though their progenitors (whom the Egyptians called the Hyskos) </quote>


I am not aware of any archeological evidence that the "Hyksos" were the Jews.

Since Carol is the linguistic expert, though, I assume she is aware that the Jews were not "slaves" in Egypt, but were "servants".  Specifically, they were military adjuncts, sort of like mercenaries, who placed themselves under the command of the Egyptian Pharoah and were assigned to live in Goshen and protect the vulnerable Nile delta from invasion.

The Bible describes the Jews as carrying their swords and weapons when they left.  Slaves, of course, do not have swords and weapons.  Military units do.
Posted by: steve s on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>It’s obviously a re-written religion that begged, borrowed & stole from other religions to flesh itself out. One of the most commonly referred to sources of origin include the Epic of Gilgamesh from which is derived:

1. Creation of man in a wonderful garden.
2. Introduction of evil into the world.
3. The great flood story.</quote>Don't forget the sinister snake.
Posted by: Moses on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>I am not aware of any archeological evidence that the “Hyksos” were the Jews.</quote>

Because they weren't yet a culturally distinct Canaanite group and you couldn't classify them in that manner.  Rather they were part of the Canaanites who, during times of famine, would migrate to Egypt and, eventually, put down roots only, because of the way they behaved, were eventually booted out of Egypt.

The short version is the Hyskos took control of Egypt around 1670BC and were kicked out around 1570BC.  And it wasn't just a narrow thing.  The Egyptians drove, with quite a bit of violence, them all the way to Syria, looting and burning  the Canaanite settlements along the way.  This is well supported from Egyptian writings of the period and the archaeological record.

Unlike the events in Exodus which are not.  Some other suspect claims includes a few historians (some of them ancient) claim these Hyskos settled in Jerusalem and built a Jewish temple at that time.  

By 1200BC the Jews had finally turned into a culturally distinct population separate from their Canaanite cousins.  In the 300+ years covering many, many generations, substantial revisionist myth-making seems to have turned into Exodus.

And, for people who find this myth-making difficult to believe, our American history of the Revolutionary War is a classic case of myth-making.  The gross-simplifications and out-right fabrications of what happened are routinely taught in our elementary and secondary schools.  You don't even come close to the truth until college.  And those clay-footed truths are frequently rejected for the happy/peppy myth of our youth.
Posted by: Corkscrew on May 14 2006,17:21

Moses: I'm interested. Any recommended sources?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

Thanks, Moses.  What about the "Sea People"?  Any research on who they were?
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

I just happen to have on my desk

Amelie Kuhrt
The Ancient Near East, c. 3000--330 BC
Routledge, 1995,
in two volumes totaling about 800 pages.

Quoting p. 173:
... and the larger part of Egypt was dominated by foreign rulers, the so-called 'Hyksos' [from c. 1650 to c. 1550]

Quoting p. 179:
A variety of archaeological material suggests that interaction between Egypt and Palestine was very intensive in this period, but this does not, by itself, help with defining the origins of the Hyksos... The Hyksos royal names have also resisted satisfactory philological analysis, so this avenue of research has rather run into the sand. ... points to a perception of the Hyksos as linked with the Levant, but is otherwise unspecific. ... Tell ed-Dab'a shows a growing presence, within a basically Egyptian town, of a non-Egyptian population group, with strong Levantine links ... Still more Minoan-style paintings were discovered in 1992--3. The interpretation of their significance is uncertain at present ... Was the tradition of such wall-paintings and motifs perhaps more widespread in the eastern Mediterranean than had been suspected?

Quoting p. 386:
Most prominent among the explanations offered for the political collapse of Anatolia and the Levant c. 1200 is the idea that the 'sea-peoples' were responsible. The term 'sea-peoples' embraces several movements by various peoples just before and just after 1200. ... One point, which cannot be emphasized enough, is that the ONLY sources for the role of the 'sea-peoples' in the crisis are the accounts of two Egyptian campaigns.
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

Ok, now I have time to go on about 'sea-peoples' from Amelie Kuhrt's book. It is too extensive to quote fully, so I'll restrict to quotations which seem relevant to what I think prompted the question.

Quoting from p. 390:
What seems to have happened is that, as Egyptian imperial power in the [Levant/Palestine/Syria/Jordan] region crumbled, the solders manning the fortresses were thrown on their own resources, reorganized themselves as independent cities, and so emerged as the Philistines of the Old Testament. It is possible that the name 'Philistine' was applied loosely to several different, though related, groups. It has even been suggested ... that the Israelite tribe of Dan, which had the peculiar characteristic of being associated with ships in the Old Testament, was originally part of one of the Egyptian garrisons settled by the Dnn [Denyen/Danuna]...
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

Interesting.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Folks,

You need to face up to the reality of the fact that historians just have no reliable information/data to go by prior to three thousand years ago. These so called "scholars" with careers to justify, find some decaying document or crumbling tablet that they don't even know which way to hold to read correctly, nor do they know a thing about the motivations and agends of the writers of these artifacts nor about all the documents that were destroyed by rulers with their own interests to protect, then proceed to conjure up pie-in-the-sky theories about what they think might have occured. And this drivel appeals to you so long as it discredits the Bible which you think is your great Satan in the religion-science wars. Would you consider such evidence in scientific issues?
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 14 2006,17:21

Talk about projection, eh, Ms. Clouser?
Posted by: Corkscrew on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote author="Carol Clouser">And this drivel appeals to you so long as it discredits the Bible which you think is your great Satan in the religion-science wars.</quote>

Well, as far as I'm concerned the Bible is fairly good at discrediting itself (OT characters behave in a way that I wouldn't consider moral. Game over.) However, it's an extremely influential work. As such, it's good to find out more about it - its history, its context, etc.

For example, the bit about Elijah and the priests of Baal apparently relates to the fact that, if you hit two pressure points on a snake's neck, it'll stiffen up and look like a stick. Elijah's triumph wasn't that he could turn a stick into a snake; it was that he was willing to risk playing with a bigger and nastier snake than the Baalites. (Note: I'm not sure about the accuracy of this - can anyone confirm?)

Carol, I'm surprised that you're so reluctant to consider the historical context of your own Holy Book.

<quote>Would you consider such evidence in scientific issues?</quote>

Are we talking about the Bible or the archaeological evidence that purports to contradict it? As far as I'm concerned, neither are remotely relevant to any scientific issue. However, as far as specific historical events that fall into the Bible timeline are concerned, they're both extremely relevant.

I'd note that your other accusations could be turned around:

"These so called “Jews” with beliefs to justify, find some decaying Holy Book that they don’t know a thing about the motivations and agendas of the writers nor about all the documents that were destroyed by rulers with their own interests to protect, then proceed to conjure up pie-in-the-sky theories about what they think might have occured."

As far as pie-in-the-sky theories go, I think the "plagues of Egypt" probably extracts the most urine. I'd have gone for Genesis, but I still have trouble believing that that was meant to be taken literally.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>You need to face up to the reality of the fact that historians just have no reliable information/data to go by prior to three thousand years ago.</quote>

Except Judah Landa, right?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>For example, the bit about Elijah and the priests of Baal apparently relates to the fact that, if you hit two pressure points on a snake’s neck, it’ll stiffen up and look like a stick. Elijah’s triumph wasn’t that he could turn a stick into a snake; it was that he was willing to risk playing with a bigger and nastier snake than the Baalites. (Note: I’m not sure about the accuracy of this - can anyone confirm?)</quote>


Snakes don't stiffen when handled, but have long been depicted, symbolically, as staffs, arrows or spears -- long thin objects capable of causing death.

Snakes were (as are most dangerous animals) potent symbols in the ancient world, and are used as such throughout the Bible.  "My snake is bigger than your snake, and I can control it safely" is indeed a powerful religious, political and social statement.  Snake-handlers of many countries have, of course, been taking advantage of this for several thousand years.

Take the story of Moses and Pharoah.  Pharoah's priests cast down a stick, which turns into a snake.  Moses' priest casts down a stick, which not only turns into a bigger snake, but that snake then eats Pharoah's snake.  The symbolism is potent.  The Egyptian cobra was the royal symbol of Egypt (the crown worn by Pharoah incorporated an image of a rearing cobra).  So the symbolism of this story is crushingly obvious ---- the Jews would beat Egypt.

Most commonly in the Bible, the snake was used as a symbol for heresy or unbelief.  Adam and Eve lost their faith in Eden because of a snake.  During the Exodus, the people of Moses suffered from many snakebites, and were "cured" by the symbol of a brass serpent carried by Moses.  When Paul was preaching to the Melitans, he was bitten by a snake, and shook it off unharmed.  

Such stories, although intended as symbolism and not actual descriptions of actual events, do demonstrate a knowledge of snake habits and biology.  Cobras do indeed make a habit of eating other snakes, including other cobras.  As for all the "miraculously-cured" snakebites, it is a little-known fact that, about half the time, venomous snakes which strike in self-defense will not actually inject any venom, a phenomenon known as a "dry bite".  Snakes, particularly desert snakes, may encounter prey only once a month, and their life depends on having sufficient venom resources to obtain it.  They therefore are extremely reluctant to use venom for self-defense purposes.  

And even if a snake gives a defensive bite with a full load of venom, the death rate for untreated snakebites is no more than 50%, depending on the species.  Hence, if you are bitten by a cobra or viper and do nothing at all whatsoever to treat it, you'll still recover about half the time.  That is why, throughout history, people have invented all sorts of silly "snakebite cures", none of which work any better than doing nothing at all, but all of which will still "work" about half the time.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Lenny,


That was a great lesson in snakes and bites. Very interesting. But you don't have the story right. Aaron's stick-turned-snake became a stick again, as did the Egyptians' snakes, and only then did Aaron's stick swallow (not "eat") the Egyptians' sticks.


Corkscrew,

Your ignorance of the Bible is even greater than Lenny's. There is no story in the Bible involving Elijah and snakes vs. the prophets of Baal.

And if you cannot see the difference between the silly "evidence" for some of the claims cited above and the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world's reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand, and who by all rational calculations should long ago have been eliminated multiple times with all those other ancient civilizations for which you have "evidence" who no longer exist, but miraculously have survived to continue their testimony, then I cannot halp you.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world’s reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand, and who by all rational calculations should long ago have been eliminated multiple times with all those other ancient civilizations for which you have “evidence” who no longer exist, but miraculously have survived to continue their testimony,</quote>


The same, of course, could be said about the Hindus, or the Chinese.  (shrug)


<quote> then I cannot halp you.</quote>

So, um, why do you keep trying, then, Carol?

If you're not here to preach, then, uh, why ARE you here?  Book sales down again?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>That was a great lesson in snakes and bites. Very interesting. But you don’t have the story right.
</quote>

I forgot that Carol doesn't understand what a "symbolic" story is.  

Of course, she doesn't understand what a "literal" story is, either.  (shrug)


<quote>Aaron’s stick-turned-snake became a stick again, as did the Egyptians’ snakes, and only then did Aaron’s stick swallow (not “eat”) the Egyptians’ sticks.</quote>


Where does it say that, Carol?

And what, exactly, is the meaningful difference between "eat" and "swallow"?

Or are you just being a dessicated old pedant again, just to dazzle us with your brilliant holy knowledge of the Hebrew Bible?

Sounds pretty prideful to me, Carol. Isn't that a sin?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson on May 14 2006,17:21

"And if you cannot see the difference between the silly “evidence” for some of the claims cited above and the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world’s reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand,"

Archeological evidence is considered solid within its discipline. No scientific discipline considers anecdotal evidence as a usable ground for knowledge.

Testimonies means nothing if they are in conflict with scientific claims, and remains doubtful otherwise. Even courts prefer physical evidence over authenticated documentary or witness evidence. I think unauthenticated documentary evidence like bibles are simply thrown out; I could be wrong however.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Lenny,

Changigng the subject, if you don't mind, here are some questions for you.

My tomato patch is yielding fewer and fewer tomatoes. What does it need? Nitrogen?

I have been finding dead creatures (chipmonks, mice, etc.) beside my man-made pond, here in NJ. At first I thought they were drowning but now I see dead birds of a variety of species. Any thoughts? The water has been changed but that did not make a difference.

And don't tell me to pray.
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Torbjorn,

There is no archeological evidence here of any significance. Instead there is very weak circumstantial evidence of murky significance. Documentary and testimonial evidence are very much accepted in courts, depending on their reliability, something that is the hands of the jury or judge.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>My tomato patch is yielding fewer and fewer tomatoes. What does it need? Nitrogen?</quote>

Beats me.  The only gardening I ever did was some, uh, hydroponics back in college.

I'd guess that the simplest solution would be to move the patch somewhere else to fresh soil.  That's what people did for thousand of years before the chemical companies successfully addicted everyone to their poisons.


<quote>I have been finding dead creatures (chipmonks, mice, etc.) beside my man-made pond, here in NJ. At first I thought they were drowning but now I see dead birds of a variety of species. Any thoughts? The water has been changed but that did not make a difference.</quote>


Well, of course I'd suspect a toxin.  What didja use for a liner?  What about the runoff -- any potential toxics there?


<quote>And don’t tell me to pray.</quote>


Why not -- afraid it won't work?
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Talk about projection, eh, Ms. Clouser?</quote>

*bing*

winner! winner!
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

"historians ... 3000 years ago" Another misunderstanding by Carol Clauser. Again quoting from Amelie Kuhrt, this time pp 9--10:

... it remains the case that the beginning of the 'Bronze Age' in the Near East c. 3000 approximately coincides with the establishment of fully urban, relatively stable, developed societies not only in Mesopotamia and Egypt, but also, during the third millennium, in the Levant, Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley and Anatolia ... with related developments in the Arab-Persian Gulf. The appearance of writing in some regions at this time is particularly important for the historian. The most sustained and continuous scribal developments occur in Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, although it is now clear that forms of notation on clay were already in use during the fourth millennium in an area stretching from north Syria to eastern Iran ... in other words it becomes increasingly possible to identify the actors and begin to discern what the characteristic traits of different regions are in a way that bald descriptions of archaeological levels and artefacts do not allow.
Posted by: Corkscrew on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Your ignorance of the Bible is even greater than Lenny’s. There is no story in the Bible involving Elijah and snakes vs. the prophets of Baal.</quote>

I do apologise, I think I managed to conflate a couple of stories and their participants. That'll teach me to rely on memory :-/

<quote>And if you cannot see the difference between the silly “evidence” for some of the claims cited above and the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world’s reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand, and who by all rational calculations should long ago have been eliminated multiple times with all those other ancient civilizations for which you have “evidence” who no longer exist, but miraculously have survived to continue their testimony, then I cannot halp you.</quote>

If we're talking about the Egyptian references to the Jews, I'd note that, at the time, those references would presumably have been taken seriously by more people than took the Jewish Torah seriously. The fact that the Egyptians got mostly wiped out and the Jews prospered by comparison does not in and of itself affect the historical truth of their claims.

Your arguments seem to be:

1) Jews all believe roughly the same thing. This is easily explained by the fact that they all have the same Torah.

2) Jews take their Holy Book very seriously. But so does every other religion in the world.

3) Jews have contributed a lot to science. This is apparently true, at least in my own field of mathematics. I'm not sure how it follows that their religious beliefs are accurate, though. It'd be interesting to know at what stage good education became a strong trend in Jewish groups.

4) The Jews should have been wiped out given all the damage they've accumulated, but haven't. I'm not quite sure how nearly being wiped out supports the existence of the Jewish God, but it's irrelevant anyway - being good at surviving doesn't necessarily mean your religious beliefs are true.
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

Corkscrew, at no period of history did the Egyptians ever get 'mostly wiped out'. Despite being conquered several times, despite famines, despite plagues ...

Go back to your mathematics!
Posted by: Corkscrew on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Corkscrew, at no period of history did the Egyptians ever get ‘mostly wiped out’. Despite being conquered several times, despite famines, despite plagues …

Go back to your mathematics!</quote>

Probably wise, although I was speaking of the civilisation not the nationality. I think. It kinda made more sense when I wrote it :(
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

Egyptian civilization: Dramatic change when Egypt became a Roman province. Clear evidence of decline at that time. Dramatic  change when Islamized. Both before and after that I don't know enough to say, except that the ancient Egyptians clearly did not care for various of their foreign rulers, several of the times that occurred...
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:21

Lenny,

Thanks for responding. But you haven't resolved the mysteries. I use no poisons or products of chemical companies of any kind. I run an all natural operation and the groundhogs, rabbits and red foxes are flourishing and having offspring on my property. I guess I will have to put on my scientist hat again and do the hard work myself.


Corkscrew,

(1) It is well known that rulers in the olden days could easily eliminate any palace or priestly scribes and their writings that displeased them. This also means that the scribes wrote with that fact on their plates. Unless a point is corroborated from multiple and diverse sources, it is just not reliable.

(2) My point about Jews was to highlight the fact that these are by no means village idiots offering their testimony.

(3) I must disagree with you on the comparison to the seriousness of other religious beliefs. The Greek and Roman conquerers would readily confirm that. Tiny Judea gave the Romans much more trouble than all the conquered peoples in their entire empire combined. I do not even see Christians today capable of refraining just from pork, prohibited by the Bible they accept, just one of a multitude of restrictions Jews abide by every day. The entire history of Christianity is based on finding excuses for not living the restricted and disciplined life demanded by the holy book they themselves accept as such. I do see seacrifice in Islam, unfortunately it is misdirected toward evil.

(4) After 2000 years of handwritten Hebrew Bibles from generation to generation, under the most trying and challenging of conditions, the Dead Sea Scrolls (talk about evidence!) confirmed that they were all almost perfectly identical to what they had two thousand years earlier. No more than a handful of letters out of 300,000 diverged and these were not meaningful differences. I don't know about you, but I am impressed. There is no reason to assume that an even older document that may be found tomorrow would go against this trend.

(5) I am well aware that none of this constitutes "proof" of divine inspiration. It does make it highly unlikely however that some character foisted an original document full of lies on these intelligent, stubborn people at some point and got them all to believe, not just that it was true, but that they had heard all these things from their fathers, and their fathers and mothers told them that they had heard these things from their fathers, and so on, going back to all their fathers and mothers all of whom themselves participated in the exodus and the other events of the Bible. Unlike Christianity and Islam where the foundational experienes, as described by their own testimonial documents and stories, occured to individuals out of sight of the multitudes.

(6) None of this constitutes science. But science is not the only path to the truth. You and we all live our lives that way too. You base actions on facts derived via methods that are anything but scientific. Many an accused has been sentenced to death, and correctly so, on the basis of testimonial evidence.

(7) None of this is the basis of my interest in the Bible. You will probably not be able to relate to this, but I will mention it anyway. After studying and analyzing the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud and the multiude of other commentaries, enough material to fill huge libraries, I can tell you that I am most impressed by the wisdom, beauty and unsurpassed ethical standards that I find therein.

(8) I am not here to preach. I don't care what you believe. I am just engaging in debate and discussion. Neither I nor any Jewish organization that I am aware of is actively pushing to inject ID into any public classroom.

And this post has gotten to be much too long for me.
Posted by: David B. Benson on May 14 2006,17:21

Once more Carol Clauser demonstrates she does not know history: Tiny Judea was not as difficult as (1) Germany (that is, the Rhineland), (2) Iberia, (3) along the Danube, just to mention three difficult places. Tiny Judea did not even get its own legion, while Britain usually had three just for itself.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson on May 14 2006,17:21

Carol,
"There is no archeological evidence here of any significance. Instead there is very weak circumstantial evidence of murky significance."

Comment #100680 by Moses refers to solid evidence. You can ask him for references.

"Documentary and testimonial evidence are very much accepted in courts, depending on their reliability, something that is the hands of the jury or judge."

Please read my comment before trying to answer. This is tangential to what I said.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>Thanks for responding. But you haven’t resolved the mysteries.</quote>

No surprise, is it, given that I am roughly 1,000 miles away and have never seen the place.


<quote>I guess I will have to put on my scientist hat again and do the hard work myself.</quote>

I'd try that "prayer" thingie first.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

<quote>But science is not the only path to the truth.</quote>

I don't recall anyone saying it was.  (shrug)

But it is, of course, the only path to SCIENCE.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 14 2006,17:21

Carol, thanks for (once again, and again, and again) offering to share your religious opinions.

Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them . . . . ?
Posted by: Carol Clouser on May 14 2006,17:22

David B. Bensen,

Why don't you go to Massada, where I stood recently, and see for yourself the outlines left behind by three Roman Legions in just that area. Then read Josephus, who provides an eyewitness account, and all scholars accept his writings as reliable, then tell us how easy Judea was. Besides how can you compare Judea, the size of New Jersey, to Germany or Iberia, about hundred times the land area and population. Judea was actually almost lost by the Romans a few times, who suffered enormous casualties there, and had to retake the province over and over again.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 15 2006,05:46

Well I guess it's true, PT can be censorious. Carol writes this ignorant twaddle:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dembski needs to learn to express himself more precisely and in a more nuanced manner. Upon reflection he probably would agree that prejudices and bigots is not what he wanted to say. Instead, a better term, one that could quite accurately be applied to all too many scientists, particularly biologists, is hubris. Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She gets intelligent replies, and Reed Cartwright sends the intelligent posts to the Bathroom Wall, leaving Carol's BS on PT. I guess his meaningless "mad-libber" post was just too important to be cluttered up with anything meaningful. I am not impressed with the man at all.

Carol, of course, can hardly write anything that doesn't expose her bigotry, ethnic, religious, anti-science, whichever one you choose. I don't suppose much more than that observation is needed to respond to the latest round of her illiterate mumblings.
Posted by: tango on May 16 2006,18:02

To Kevin Padian, Wesley Elsberry, and the rest of the PT Board:


I would like to begin by saying that what Bill Dembski has done was embarrasingly reckless for someone who is a mouthpiece for the ID movement. This is something he has conceded and a point which is no longer at issue. With that said, may I inquire why the same standard is not held for the likes of PZ Myers, an active contributor here on the PT? So there is not mistake, Myers is completely correct in defending science against creationist lunes. Evolution is a fact as solid as any. But I am confused why Myers, being a well-qualified scientist, made similarly baseless accusations against agnostic DI fellow David Berlinski, saying:



"Berlinski's latest book is a defense of astrology.

Berlinski's latest book is a defense of astrology.

Berlinski, who finds evolution unbelievable, has written a book that is a defense of astrology.

Somebody please pick me up. Help me up off the floor. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's 2005, I'm in one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced countries on the planet, and I have to defend my discipline from the criticisms of an astrologer." (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/repeating_myself_because_i_can_hardly_believe_it/)



Myers, of couse, did not read Berlinski's book, but thought it fit to smear his credibility since he didn't support the fact of evolution.

Myers did make a half-hearted retraction, saying:

"I guess I will retract my accusation that he's an astrologer. I think. It's a bit difficult to parse, since he hedges his disavowal with that peculiar "in the sense" clause, but OK, Berlinski seems to agree that astrology is bunk." < http://pharyngula.org/index....P0 >


But Myers still refers to Berlinski as

..."a professional pompous ass and semi-supporter of astrology."
< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....y_t.php >


Berlinski has himself said that the very idea of defending astrology is absurd and has told Myers that  he is not an astrologer and that his book is in no way an endorsement of astrology. (In fact, in his "On the Origins of the Mind" piece he compares evolutionary psychology to ancient astrology, noting they are both bunk.) It seems Myers does not conform to the standard the likes of Bill Dembski sets.


Why on earth is this? Why is there a need to smear when in fact the science itself is on the side of evolution? Of course students who are raised to reject evolution by their ignorant parents are scared, and they have a right to be with the threat of baseless accusations being leveled at them by the likes of PZ Myers. Myers is not reaching these children, he is pushing them away. His approach is irresponsible and reckless. I do recall reading on Pharyngula about a state science fair presentation by a young man arguing against the natural formation of proteins by old and tired improbability arguments. This kid was pretty much embarrassed on his very popular weblog. And he was (if I recall) no older than 15. He should not have been criticized publicly. Rather the creationists who promote the idea from which doubtless the kid found his argument should have been criticized on a scientific basis.

There is a better way to handle creationists than the way PZ does. There is nothing wrong with PZ's fierce criticism. There is something wrong with smearing, character-assasination, and embarrassing kids.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 16 2006,18:02

<quote>There is a better way to handle creationists than the way PZ does. There is nothing wrong with PZ’s fierce criticism. There is something wrong with smearing, character-assasination, and embarrassing kids.</quote>

Yes, but he doesn't do it in his blogs here, or at least not much.  I've drifted away from Pharyngula (perhaps some of my last posts there were deliberately hindered there, I'm not sure), not bothering to register since that was required.  Why?  Mostly because of what you say, and because he seems not to care in the slightest that he knows so little about religion, or politics for that matter, before declaiming on it as if he were an expert.  Isn't it sauce for the gander for him to speak less about, in particular, religion, if he believes that those with little science knowledge ought to speak less on science matters?

I think it's especially ironic that he uses Nietzsche quotes to fault theism, when Nietzsche probably was as much opposed to atheistic righteous types like PZ as much as he was opposed to Xians.  Can we say, "quote-mining" (I don't care that his quotes come from someone else's selections)?

I doubt that much more of a response/nonresponse is really necessary or called for.  His blogs on Pharyngula are his, as is proper, while he typically posts competent science on this blog.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: steve s on May 16 2006,18:02

erroneously saying...

<quote>Berlinski’s latest book is a defense of astrology.</quote>

...is a bit different than calling someone a bigot, juxtaposing his photo with Archie Bunker's, posting a cartoon showing the person as a Klan member, retracting that, and then continuing to allow one of your boys to call him a bigot.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16 2006,18:02

Hmmm. I don't recall "Berlinski" being topical in this thread. Nor are the situations even vaguely analogous.

Is there some reason why "tango"/"idon'treallycare" should be excused from Rule 6 moderation?
Posted by: tango on May 16 2006,18:02

Mr. Elsberry:

PZ Myers accusations were not at all as bad as Dembski's. I did not mean to contend that it was. Rather the point was that smearing was involved in both cases, and that in both matters could have been handled in a better way. My apologies if it was irrelevant to the discussion. I did not mean to convey any impression that Myers is a bigot or any such accusation.

I will humbly exit the discussion now.
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 16 2006,18:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Berlinski has himself said that the very idea of defending astrology is absurd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



except when he's on the stand in a legal proceeding...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16 2006,18:13

That was Behe.
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 16 2006,18:23

of course.

I should be ashamed for getting those two confused.

I'm going to go write a big long letter of apology to both of them right now.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 16 2006,22:23

I should think so, too Sir T.

And after you've finished them, what about answering Dr. Elsberry's < question >? I'm sure he has given up on a response from you by now!
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 17 2006,10:29

oh my, i was gone for a while and didn't even realize somebody had bothered to respond to that post.

It had been up for a quite a while.

thanks for the head's up.
Posted by: Hunter on May 19 2006,15:13

After being hit on 2 fronts, I was left slumped against the bathroom wall.
dho'gaza hit me full in the face with the "Davetard" offensive : I have Googled "Marty Luther antisem"  and got 653k hits - I must be right _I was left stunned.
 Before I had a chance to read anything, Arden stuck me with the "larry farfarfarfman "Wiki pedia "" defence.
I thought I'll hit back and googled "arden racist" and got 54K hit. What did it mean? absolutely nothing. Ardens a nice guy.

Before I slide into the urinal at the bathroom wall I would like to clear up a couple of points based on Mr O 'Gaza s statement:
Even although you did not post a link to the relevent thread at UD as I hoped, I evetnually found it. Bizzare!
(The post-not you)

I kind of "half see" where you are coming from, but I still think your 2nd paragraph is a sweeping generalization of Europe pre- Darwin.
European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person and so had no feelings towards them at all. 1800s, the English were racist against the French, the poles were racist against the  russians, the germans and italians didnt exist and the french wre racist against everybody else. Relations between N; Africa, the Middle East and "Western" Europe had been going on for centuries.

No one had time for racism against the africans.
And please do not be dumb enough to bring up the african slave trade as an example of racism.

Post AD 0, all christians were anti- semetic. After all they nailed jesus to a cross. The Jews were the fall guys all through Europea
After reading the excellent Wiki post about ML, I see that he was for a lot of his life very sympathetic towards the jews. Something in his later years semms to have turned him bitter.






I take issue with you on various points -- sort of.
Posted by: Hunter on May 19 2006,15:21

aaargh
ther are far to many buttons on this keyboard

Ive lost track of my post I punched enter too soon.

Summary

Since 0ad
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 19 2006,20:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL

you ARE kidding, right?

At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?

1950?

LOL

gees, you are funny.

yes, in the 1800's the english hated the french, etc. (er, those are nationalities at this point, not "races"), but they made SLAVES out of Africans.

nope.  no racisism there, not at all.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 20 2006,03:09



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

European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person and so had no feelings towards them at all.

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



Pre 871, the vast majority of Saxons had never seen a Viking and so had no feelings towards them at all.

Yeah, right. Wanna buy a bridge?
Posted by: Paul Flocken on May 20 2006,04:43

Quote (Carol Clouser wrote @ May 14 2006,22:21)
Folks,

You need to face up to the reality of the fact that historians just have no reliable information/data to go by prior to three thousand years ago. These so called "scholars" with careers to justify, find some decaying document or crumbling tablet that they don't even know which way to hold to read correctly, nor do they know a thing about the motivations and agends of the writers of these artifacts nor about all the documents that were destroyed by rulers with their own interests to protect, then proceed to conjure up pie-in-the-sky theories about what they think might have occured. And this drivel appeals to you so long as it discredits the Bible which you think is your great Satan in the religion-science wars. Would you consider such evidence in scientific issues?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<sarcastic smirking>
No doubt the fact that many of these so-called 'suspect' scholars are Jews who live and work in Israel is absolutely worthless.</sarcastic smirking>

Edited to show Carol Clouser was the author of the original post.
Posted by: Hunter on May 20 2006,04:52

First
Apologies for errors in editing previous posts. I havent mastered this blogging thing yet.


ooooh! Sir T J

That must be the most erroneous post you have ever written on a word/error ratio.


*European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person*  


*LOL

you ARE kidding, right?

Just how many black Africans do you think were wandering the streets of Stuttgart, Strasbourg, Stockholm, Sarajevo, Stavanger, San Marino or Banff in 1850-1899?
(couldn't find any towns named Steve!;)


*At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?

1950?*

Cameroun, Ghana 1870s
Congo 1880s
Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Gabon 1890s
etc,etc;etc

When did you think  "Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?" Your answer could change history!

Next point get you a "Larry" from Wiki.

Race:--a population of humans distinguished from other populations.

Could language, geographical location, genetics? love of frogs distinguish a population living on the british isles from another population living on th european mainland.
It certainly stands up in court as racism if you call an englishman a ********.

gees, you are funny.-Correct but in the wrong context.

*but they made SLAVES out of Africans*

Nope! wrong again! They were bought as Slaves, normally from the local African King.
The slave trade had existed between West and North Africa  many hundredrs of years before the Europeans (Greeks, Romans) had discoverered "Black" Sub-Saharan Africa.
Europeans didn't leave the coast and explore "Dark Africa" until the mid 1800s, Livingstone, Park etc.
Prior to the abolition of the slave trade by European Countries(!;), slave traders from various countries were allowed to set up compounds near the African coast on the indulgence of the African King.
Note here that the white man is buying slaves from the blackman.This is fact Sir TJ. The Europeans did not make them slaves, the African did.
Of course it is no excuse for this terrible trade and please do not assume that I support or condone this in any way.
It was the abolition of slavery which deprived the local west african kings of their income and power and allowed the establishment of Euoropean colonies during the second half of the 19th cent.(ref: At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa)

The African slave trade has existed for a couple of thousand of years. The European participation was short but unfortunately prolific.  Very few african slaves actually came to Europe, most were shipped to the Americas.
Europeans were at the forefront of legislation to abolish slavery in the early 18 hundreds. Other countries had a civil war in the 1860s.

Sir TJ

I have trolled here since the first nail growth of the pandas thumb,  I have always enjoyed your posts. You are an excellent biologist but your (and dhgozo) history knowledge outside the usa maybe requires a refresher course.

PLease do not take this post as a personal attack on you or dhogaza.

The point of my posts are that you cannot attack the God squad with  erroneous "facts".  (Most of you guys are biologoists etc. That is your strong point.Argue on those points




















[B][/B][B][I][U]
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 20 2006,05:28

This is a "web bulletin board", not a "weblog".
Posted by: stephenWells on May 20 2006,06:38

Quote (Hunter @ May 20 2006,09:52)
The African slave trade has existed for a couple of thousand of years. The European participation was short but unfortunately prolific.  Very few african slaves actually came to Europe, most were shipped to the Americas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Full points to Hunter for total ignorance and lack of logic.

Factual error: your claim that European contact with Africans is recent.
Cape of Good Hope: European colony well established in seventeenth century. "Blame it on van Riebeck". My Huguenot ancestors were there in 1693 and one of them got killed with a large rock by a native who wasn't happy about having his land stolen. That's contact, and colonisation, and it didn't improve anyone's opinions about anyone.
"First comes the trader, then the missionary, then the red soldier" -Cetshwayo.
Lots of European traders along the Ivory Coast, and in East Africa- there were Royal Navy slavery suppression/regulation missions along there in the 18th century.
Read Aphra Behn, "Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave", 1688.

Factual error AND logical fallacy: your claim that if most 19th century Europeans hadn't met Africans they therefore didn't have an opinion about them. Trivially incorrect; it's really, really easy to have an opinion about people you haven't met, and the literary and historical record is FULL of viciously racist opinions.

Error and logical fallacy: your claim that there was no racism in the slave trade because most slaves were sold to traders by other African tribes. Firstly, the whole African side of the supply chain clearly says nothing about the European side, and I think it's pretty clear that buying people, packing them like sardines into the hold of a ship, and selling the survivors of the voyage to plantation owners, does not indicate very great respect for human rights, to put it mildly.

You point out that few slaves were brought to Europe. That has a lot to do with where the sugar plantations are, doesn't it? And who founded and established those? And who was profiting from running the trade? I used to live near Bristol. Big port. Half the city was built on slave-trade money.

The anti-slavery movement in Europe doesn't mean most Europeans were noble egalitarian liberal respecters of human rights. Not everyone is a Wilberforce.

It's simply a blunt historical fact that most people through most of history have been viciously and often lethally prejudiced against strangers, foreigners and outsiders in general. None of us need to feel guilt or shame for what people, who are now dead, did to each other long ago. But we should be very aware of history, so that the ghastly consequences of these habits of thought remain vividly before us as a constant reminder of what we're trying to avoid. Pretending that ethnic/political/national/religious group X - Europeans, in this case - were shining noble wonderful paragons of virtue is pointless and misleading.
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 20 2006,10:27

even more laughing!!!

Hunter, you actually thought my posting 1950 as the date erupopeans colonized Africa was anything but pure sarcasm at the answers you already messed up so bad????

Just for you, since you seem incapable of comprehending sarcasm...

take a closer look:

I asked when YOU thought the inroads were made, and based on your idiotic comments of no racism before 1900's, i could only assume YOU were thinking somewhere later, and sarcastically asked you if it was as late as 1950.

to which, even though you posted dates BEFORE 1900, you didn't retract your idiotic premise.

gees, you have more pyschological problems than i can count in a single post.

What does it mean when somebody can't grasp sarcasm at such a basic level?

Are you getting treatment?

I sincerely hope so.

oh, and...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
love of frogs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwahahahahaha!

what a clown.

as a tip, I do think you are confusing culture with race there, old boy, not that that is the only thing you are apparently confused about.  

There really is far too much confusion in your thinking for me to ever fully straighten out, so if you choose not to seek treatment, do feel free to make me laugh some more!

you're still funny.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on May 21 2006,04:03

Quote (stephenWells @ May 20 2006,11:38)
Factual error AND logical fallacy: your claim that if most 19th century Europeans hadn't met Africans they therefore didn't have an opinion about them. Trivially incorrect; it's really, really easy to have an opinion about people you haven't met, and the literary and historical record is FULL of viciously racist opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, if Hunter's claim about 19th century Europeans was true then it would be triply true about 16th century Europeans; yet some English playwright dude knew enough to write an entire play about an African.  Now, what WAS his name?
Posted by: stevestory on May 21 2006,05:02

Speaking of that, a 17th century English commenter, whose name escapes me, wrote that the play you speak of was ridiculous, because his people would hardly let a 'black-a-moor' play the trumpet, let alone command an army.
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 21 2006,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what WAS his name?

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



Kunte Kinte?

;)
Posted by: jupiter on May 21 2006,14:56

No, it was that Francis Bacon guy, who wasn't quite right in the head, I think. Have you seen that painting of his, Screaming Queen?  (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Though, to be fair, his essays on inductive labor apparently had a tremendous influence on science, or obstetrics. Or maybe industrial relations. Something like that, anyway.
Posted by: FL on May 26 2006,19:45

Typo correction:  I said "the Bathroom Wall" instead of "ATBC" (After-The-Bar-Closes).  My apologies.
Posted by: FL on May 26 2006,19:45

<quote>I claim you are suffering from a mental disorder, and I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.</quote>

A "mental disorder", you say?  Well, <b>~that's~</b> an interesting development!

So, okay, sure, I await your professional psychoanalysis of my mental condition, Doc.

However, to make things convenient for me,
<b>(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier's question?</b>  

After all, those two detailed responses are what I have spent some time thinking about, searching up, composing, and offering in this thread.
And in light of those efforts, I honestly don't see any need to run over to the Bathroom Wall when right here and now will do just fine.  Just do it, Sir Toejam.
 
(Certainly the response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier, with its multiple links and posts, should provide you with ~plenty~ of hearty evidence to explain and support your presumably ~unbiased~ psychological evaluation.)  

No gentlemen's bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere.  Just start typing right after you read this, click on "Preview" and then "Post."  

Btw, I define "mental disorder" as a disorder that is <b>at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.</b>  
I think that's a fair and reasonable definition, no?

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say about it, Sir T.  
I await your scientifically-supported, professionally-credentialled diagnosis. Thanks again, Doc!

FL
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 26 2006,19:47

<quote>do you even understand what Lenny is getting at with his oft repeated questions?</quote>

Nope.  But the lurkers sure do.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 26 2006,19:47

<quote> Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s.  </quote>

Yeah, right, whatever.

Then, uh, why on earth should anyone listen to your religious opinions, FL.


Oh, and I notice you still haven't explained this:


FL says:  ID isn't creationism

DI says:  One of our five-year goals is to have mainstream  churches defend the traditional doctrine of creation.

One of you is bullshitting us, FL.

Which is it?
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 26 2006,19:47

<quote>Conso is kaput already.
</quote>

you must have missed it.  I could care less about conso myself, I was addressing my comments strictly to your own arguments, or actually lack thereof.

examples from your most recent post of actually NOT addressing a question when asked directly:

<quote>Conclusions based not only on reading and study, but also on multiple visits and getting to know them personally over time.</quote>

this is not evidence in support of an argument, it's a simple deflection to authority.



<quote>Because I sit down and make an effort to SUPPORT whatever religious opinions I offer you, from the Scriptures and/or whatever Non-Christian sources may be available.
</quote>

claiming you do something is far different from actually doing it, in case you needed that explained to you.

of course, waving your KJB at us wouldn't exactly be considered evidence either.

simply stated, you're completely delusional.

your answers, as evidenced by your own post to defend yourself, aren't.

do you even understand what Lenny is getting at with his oft repeated questions?

doubtful.

I claim you are suffering from a mental disorder, and I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny's questions.

Care to play?  stakes are simple, just a gentleman's bet, if you know what that means.

if so, I'll start a new thread over on ATBC, and we can start analyzing your posts and let the audience decide.
Posted by: FL on May 26 2006,19:48

<quote>As far as I recall, you usually enter a thread, spew a lot of BS and then run away.</quote>

Hey, I forgot:  Renier, you're refuted too.  

Hope <b>~you~</b> won't run away from my response there.  
Try engaging it.  

FL
Posted by: FL on May 26 2006,19:48

Sorry for the delay there, decided to get some sleep last night while working on a response to Lenny's latest question-of-the-month.  

Side notes:

1.  Sir Toejam:  you might as well let it go.  Conso is <b>kaput</b> already.  
You are NOT able to salvage that claim of his, or you honestly would have done so by now.  So let's allow Lenny, therefore, to mercifully change the subject.

2.  Andrew, Ken, and Renier:  You asked for links to previous  
Lenny-questions-of-the-month and my responses to them.

So here you go, gentlemen, for your reading pleasure.

******************************************************

In a thread relating to Unitarian Universalists, I respond to Lenny’s "Just ask him" gig.

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/evolution_101_u_1.html >
Comment 90517

<quote>Because FL is an arrogant prideful judgemental intolerant prick who thinks (quite literally) that he is holier than everyone else.
Just ask him.</quote>

And so I answered Lenny in the very next comment.  Partial snip:

<quote>
Again, it’s not about any “holier-than-thou’s”, but simple honesty.

These UU folks are honest about their positions, and I’ve tried to maintain that same sense of honesty in describing my stated conclusions about them.

Conclusions based not only on reading and study, but also on multiple visits and getting to know them personally over time.

(I trust that you’ve been through a similar process of study, visiting, and getting to know them personally too, Rev. Lenny. You have, haven’t you?)</quote>

Btw, Lenny has not yet answered ~my~ question after all this time.  Maybe Andrew, Ken, and Renier will ask him <b>why not</b>, given Lenny's constant emphasis on people answering ~his~ questions.

**********************************************

Then there was the Evolution Sunday thing.  Lenny asked two sets of questions, and I offered him two sets of answers (which he could not refute, of course.).

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evolution_sunda.html >

Scroll down to Comment 79536 to see Lenny’s first set, and then go to Comment 79801 to see my answer to him.

Lenny’s second set of questions is at Comment 79539, and my answers for  that set are at Comment 79876.

*******************************************

Then there’s the thread “Yet More Desperation at the DI” at

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

Lenny asked (comment 96116),

<quote>Um, hey FL, aren’t YOU a YEC …. ?

By the way, FL, since you’re back for another drive-by, would you mind explaining to me why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else’s?</quote>

And so I answered his questions in Comment 96126.  You'll need to read the whole thing (I trust you will), but here’s a partial snip:


<quote>Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s. That statement is honestly yours, not mine.

However, I honestly do believe that my religious opinions may SOUND more authoritative than ~yours~ in particular.

You know why? Because I sit down and make an effort to SUPPORT whatever religious opinions I offer you, from the Scriptures and/or whatever Non-Christian sources may be available.</quote>

And that fact, btw, remains mondo fact unto this day.  

************************************************

I also previously answered Lenny’s question of <b>~Adam Versus The Bootleg Bacteria~</b>, but I’m willing to let Lenny or somebody else search for that one.

I ~think~ I've provided enough linked examples for the three of you (and all those "lurkers" out there that Lenny wants to appeal to)
to consider at this time.  Your request is now answered.

Andrew asked, <i>"why not link said thread so that those of us who weren’t there at the time can judge for ourselves whether you answered it or not?"</i>.  

Well, Andrew, your question is legitimate, but there ya go.  Read every bit of it (because text demands context, I'm sure you agree), and then Judge Away, sir!

FL

************************************************

(PS.  I realize there's still the matter of Lenny's current Flavor Of the Month, but I got three days of Memorial Daw Weekend to play with that one, and so I'll take it easy for now.  This current response should be more than enough.)

(PPS specifically for Lenny:  your statement <i>"Fortunately, people like FL and Donald make it pretty easy to show the lurkers that creationist/IDers are all dishonest deceptive evasive liars who never answer direct questions and who haven’t said anything new in forty-odd years"</i> is now flat-out <b>~refuted~)</b>.  

Since Lenny likes appealing to lurkers, let all lurkers consider, compare & contrast Lenny's stuff and my stuff.  I'm content with that comparison.  

(And btw, Lenny, you still have offered NOTHING to salvage Conso with, either.
Rather <b>predictable</b>, aint'cha?  But have yourself a good holiday weekend all the same!)

FL
Posted by: PennyBright on May 27 2006,06:30

Quote (Guest @ May 27 2006,00:48)

Since Lenny likes appealing to lurkers, let all lurkers consider, compare & contrast Lenny's stuff and my stuff. I'm content with that comparison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've been lurking for ages now.

Lenny's stuff wins.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 27 2006,06:42

Hey FL, if ID isn't creationism, then why does DI list "traditional doctrine of creation" as one of its "five year objectives"?
Posted by: FL on May 27 2006,06:43

Hmm.  Andrew, Ken, and Renier's request that was addressed to me have NOT been deleted from this board at the time of this writing, but the information and links that I specifically provided to them apparently HAS been deleted.

That would tend to present a possible mis-impression, that I failed to do them the courtesy of responding to their legitimate request.  

I simply want to say (for Lenny's "lurkers") that I did answer their request, upfront and with specific detail and links.  

FL
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 27 2006,06:43

ach! i see you axed FL's post.  

axe mine too, please.

makes no sense now.

thanks
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 27 2006,06:43

OHHH alright :p

I'll summarize what i actually said with this instead then, and leave the issue at that.

<quote>(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier’s question?</quote>

uh, no and no.

here's why:

1.  it's OT and of little interest to just about anybody else but myself, most likely.  So it will have to be ATBC.
Though i can see why you want to limit it to this thread.

2.  Your setting up the dataset to fail by restricting the sample size to a ridiculously small number of posts.
If I'm going to show a consistent pattern, I intend to look at a MUCH larger sample of your posts (I wouldn't have even bothered unless I had already noticed a pattern over the months of your posting behavior).

as to:

at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.
I think that’s a fair and reasonable definition, no?

Hmm, sounds reasonable. agreed.


<quote>No gentlemen’s bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere. Just start typing right after you read this, click on “Preview” and then “Post.”

</quote>

oh yes, i do smell fear; which really shouldn't be the case.  It's no big deal, right?

do remember tho, what i said:

<quote>I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.
</quote>

i just have to provide better evidence from your posts that you are suffering from a mental disorder than you can that they provide answers to Lenny's questions.

Still wanna go?

I'm game, I agreed to one of your provisos, so if you're ammenable to the other two, it could be fun.

no need to discuss this here further.  You can even start the post yourself over at ATBC, and if you still want to discuss terms, we can do so there.

I consider this the end of discussion on this issue on PT.  see you in the bar.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 27 2006,06:44

FL sweats fear:

<quote>(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier’s question?

uh, no and no.

here's why:

1.  it's OT and of little interest to just about anybody else but myself, most likely.  So it will have to be ATBC.
Though i can see why you want to limit it to this thread.

2.  Your setting up the dataset to fail by restricting the sample size to a ridiculously small number of posts.
If I'm going to show a consistent pattern, I intend to look at a MUCH larger sample of your posts (I wouldn't have even bothered unless I had already noticed a pattern over the months of your posting behavior).

as to:

at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.
I think that’s a fair and reasonable definition, no?

it sounds fair on the surface, but I have to check the reference to see.

basically, just to give you a clue, I'll be working with the rampant denial and projection you exhibit in most of your posts, and since you are apparently familiar with at least "some" form of official psychological terminology, I'm sure you also can recognize the several catergories of disorder I could play with given the observed behavior?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No gentlemen’s bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere. Just start typing right after you read this, click on “Preview” and then “Post.”


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



oh yes, i do smell fear; which really you shouldn't.  It's no big deal, right?

do remember tho, what i said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.

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



i don't have to prove you're crazy; just provide better evidence from your posts that you are suffering from a mental disorder than you can that they provide answers to Lenny's questions.

Still wanna go?

I'm game, provided you aren't too scared to look at ALL of your posts, and not just the few here.

Heck, you might even learn something.  It could be fun.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on May 27 2006,06:45

Hey FL;

if we cared what AIG had to say about ANYTHING, we certainly wouldn't need morons like yourself to point the way.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 27 2006,06:46

<quote>And here is my own somewhat spicier analysis of the Consolmagno story, which I offered some time ago on another forum.</quote>



Thanks for yout opinions, Fl.  We'll give them, uh, due consideration.

But now that you're back again, let me repeat my simple question to you that you seem to have run away from the last dozen or so times I asked:

*ahem*

You claimed, rather stridently, that ID isn't creationism and that DI doesn't support creationism.

In the Wedge Document, under "Five Year Objectives", the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture lists:

<quote> Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation </quote>

What, precisely, is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI lists as one of its "objectives", and why, exactly, do they want "mainstream christian denominations" to "defend" it?

It's a simple question, FL.  Why are you so reluctant to answer it . . . . . . . . ?
Posted by: Ken Baggaley on May 27 2006,06:47

FL wrote:

"You mean like the question I answered last time? And the one I answered prior to that?"

Link, please?

- K.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 27 2006,08:49

Haha...  I just took < This Trip Down Memory Lane >, which occured just after I began lurking here and at the Thumb proper.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A year later, it's still funny.

BUSTED!

:p
Posted by: Philip Bruce Heywood on May 28 2006,07:32

NEW SCIENTIST 8th April '06, features "The Quantum Elixir", a rivetting description by R. Matthews of recent advances in understanding of good old Adam's ale.  Quotes: "... the effects of water on living organisms transcend mere chemistry ... you owe your existence to quantum [subatomic]effects in water .... 'the water molecules report the DNA sequence to the protein while it is still some distance away ... then as the protein gets closer, the water molecules are ejected ... the water molecules relay messages to the protein ... they can even warn the approaching protein about potential problems with the DNA before it arrives' .... the latest discoveries about the role of water in living processes may change [opinions].. ..'it's the magic ingredient that turns lifeless powders on laboratory shelves into living things'"  Note, there are quotes within this quote, which may not fully align with Matthews' opinion.  The final phrase obviously is not meant to be taken literally.   But NEW SCIENTIST is not publishing trash science here.  Mind you, NEW SCIENTIST, along with Messrs. Brockman and the EDGE contributors, certainly give an impression that they have departed from orthodoxy, being fundamentally opposed to the world views of men such as Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Einstein, and perhaps in some measure of Darwin himself?  The philosophical base of traditional Science is in the history books for all to find.  Apparently, EDGE & co. have yet to find it.
Returning to the "magical" Adam's ale: thanks to the modern quantum Age, we know that water, an inert substance, goes close to having life-gendering properties.  Is this news?  No.  GENESIS 1:20: "... let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ... ". That almost gives water creative power.
NEW SCIENTIST, EDGE & co. presumably would prefer magic?
We haven't even started in on clay mineralogy and its possible similarity to DNA.  "...let the earth bring forth the living creature .... "
Check out the whole spectrum of breathtaking, biblically based technical advances in Origins Science at CREATIONTHEORY.COM -- the invisible site. AIG, D.I. NASA, Prof. Dawkins, etc., can never find it.  Lenny Flank has given up trying.  
Mind you, verbal exchanges over the 'Net are probably therapeutic, and it may be that in the interests of keeping some people off the streets, or reducing levels of domestic violence, or something, the grand Debate probably should continue.
It is however of concern that Science could become a casualty.  Have pity on it.
So there is no sound alternative to near-hysterical support of full-on Darwinism?   Really?   Will certain elements of "Science" continue willy-nilly until dragged to the party by uneducated, ignorant people who are at least as stupid as Einstein, Newton. & co.?
Give Science a break.   P.H..
Posted by: k.e. on May 28 2006,07:33

oooooh a rip in the cosmic curtain let in too much water and light for the tribe of rock hearders in a levantin desert.
A quantum sphinx  1/2 man 1/2 beast....dribbles off to the Da Vinci code.

Heywood drunk on his "Quantum HElicksher"
uses water to wash away his sins, keep it up, Bruce.
Posted by: Anton Mates on May 28 2006,07:33

<quote author="Philip Bruce Heywood">
NEW SCIENTIST 8th April ‘06, features “The Quantum Elixir”, a rivetting description by R. Matthews of recent advances in understanding of good old Adam’s ale. Quotes: “… the effects of water on living organisms transcend mere chemistry … you owe your existence to quantum [subatomic]effects in water …. ‘the water molecules report the DNA sequence to the protein while it is still some distance away … then as the protein gets closer, the water molecules are ejected … the water molecules relay messages to the protein … they can even warn the approaching protein about potential problems with the DNA before it arrives’ …. the latest discoveries about the role of water in living processes may change [opinions]….’it’s the magic ingredient that turns lifeless powders on laboratory shelves into living things’” Note, there are quotes within this quote, which may not fully align with Matthews’ opinion. The final phrase obviously is not meant to be taken literally. But NEW SCIENTIST is not publishing trash science here.</quote>
Dude.  It's <i>New Scientist</i>.  It's what comic book writers reference when they want to claim that this month's mind-control ray or sentient bacterial swarm has scientific support.

This very article opens with Masaru Emoto's "Water makes funny shapes when you talk to it" research and spends a good chunk of the end pushing homeopathy.  Upheaving mainstream science, this is not.

<quote>Returning to the “magical” Adam’s ale: thanks to the modern quantum Age, we know that water, an inert substance, goes close to having life-gendering properties. Is this news? No. GENESIS 1:20: “… let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life … “. That almost gives water creative power.
NEW SCIENTIST, EDGE & co. presumably would prefer magic?</quote>

Apparently they'd prefer mystical sentient memory water.  If you disagree, why quote them in the first place?
Posted by: Anton Mates on May 28 2006,07:33

<quote author="Philip Bruce Heywood">
Check out the whole spectrum of breathtaking, biblically based technical advances in Origins Science at CREATIONTHEORY.COM — the invisible site. AIG, D.I. NASA, Prof. Dawkins, etc., can never find it. Lenny Flank has given up trying.</quote>
After viewing <url href="http://www.creationtheory.com/images/monkey.jpg">these</url> Lovecraftian <url href="http://www.creationtheory.com/images/babesatire.jpg">horrors</url>, they probably suffered short-term memory loss.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28 2006,07:35

Heywood is blithering again.

(yawn)
Posted by: Philip Bruce Heywood on May 28 2006,07:35

Thanks, Anton, can you help with some monkey verse?  I think you put a few extra words in NEW SCIENTIST's mouth, but people can check the original article.  

Tom,  you left out Sir Richard Owen's "Law of Progression from the General to the Particular"(1846,1851).  Possibly the best reference to this evolutionary idea is John Reader, 1986. THE RISE OF LIFE. Collins, Grafton Street, London.       You could of course cut corners by going direct to my site, but may prefer to consult a fully darwinist Evolutionist such as Reader.  I quote him on the site.  
As far as I can discern - you may be able to improve on this - Owen's idea was that life was somehow pre-programmed to transform from one species to another.  He made no claim to being able to discern how the transformations occurred, except to imply that the transformation event itself was pivotal and could not be the product of environmental pressures.  I think he inclined to the definition of a species as a closed reproductive entity or the nearest estimate thereto - reproductive isolation of species.  
If we assume environmental pressure acted as a trigger or catalyst to transformation events, natural selection - Darwin - can in some sense be incorporated with Owen, and a composite theory meeting the factual requirements of species revelation follows.  Owen's idea suddenly comes into vogue in the light of information technology and especially the DNA- quantum computation link.  This same information technology opens the door to conjecture re. environment-relevant information incorporation by DNA at the point of transformation.  The ultimate Source of the information is a private matter and presents no more of a hurdle to research than does the question of the Source of matter. Its storage and transmission are open to discovery and already show signs of being hot topics. All this and much more is of course addressed at my site.  I value criticism and feedback.

   The fact that the opinions of someone as prestigious as Richard Owen (not to mention a battery of others) are all but unknown to students in classrooms, scarcely commends some policies being pursued in science education.   Well, at least there is something actually spproximating to free speech at TALKORIGINS.  P.H..
Posted by: k.e. on May 28 2006,07:36

Hahahahahahahaha
Well Brucey babe, the front loaded "ultimate Source of the information is a private matter".
You just can't take a trick can you?
Richard Freaking  Who?
Oh yes another dead white man who didn't like Darwin.
Richard Owen (1804-1892) ...who was considered "lazy and impudent" by his schoomasters....no wonder you liked him bwucie.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28 2006,07:36

<quote>The fact that the opinions of someone as prestigious as Richard Owen</quote>


Why do the fundies have such a penchant for 100-year-old "science"?
Posted by: k.e on May 28 2006,07:36

:>
Posted by: Rich on June 01 2006,13:31

Hi Carol. Can you please give me some insights into how Amazon book rankings work?

Many thanks.
Posted by: beelzebub on June 01 2006,17:46

The cries of the tormented in the depths of #### just got louder by one voice.
Posted by: Mark Rosenkranz on June 01 2006,17:58

I'm using this forum to get the word out.  Because of a situation the press has not released this information. First of all, I believe Lynn Swann is the best choice for governor.  In the book "White Male Privilege" there is a section that details an experience Lynn Swann had with racism.  The UK Amazon has a synopsis of this event.
Posted by: P B H on June 04 2006,06:59

I will add something on the off chance there may be some decent person who is wondering what that was all about.  These commentators are chewing on the rug because their PreCambrian preconceptions tell them that being a member of a species is all to do with outward shape, when it is known and always has been known and always will be a fact that being a member of a species has mostly to do with being able to marry and have children.  Your husband might look more like an ape than a human; he might act more like an sape than a human; he may swing through trees at a terrific rate making the appropriate noises; he may even contribute at TalkOrigins!  But if you and he have raised a family, well, shape aside, what species does he belong to?  And if you wish to find out more about the origin of the species, visit the link that is my name.  There's no monkeying there!
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 04 2006,07:00

Hey Heywood, do you know what a "blithering idiot" is?

You're "blithering" again.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on June 05 2006,20:19

<quote>Seen any half-apes walking down the street?</quote>

maybe i have...

how would we know if we did, Phillip?

while you try to figure that out, maybe the words of this artist will give you inspiration:

< http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cgullans/chimpwoman.html >
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on June 05 2006,20:19

... and for those that prefer to sing along...

< http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cgullans/ChimpWoman.mp3 >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 05 2006,20:31

awww, pim, you're losing your sense of humor.
Posted by: Henry J on June 06 2006,06:24

Re "Seen any half-apes walking down the street?"

Like those cave people in the ad on TV? After all, they wouldn't put them in ads if they didn't exist, right? (heh heh)
Posted by: wamba on June 08 2006,05:42

<quote>
Whilst we’re on the subject of Dembski, I’m feeling a bit freaked. I walked into the Cambridge University Press bookshop the other day and guess what was on prominent display right near the door? “The Design Inference”. :(

Is there anything that can be done here without looking like an asshat?
</quote>
No. I recommend you go straight for the ***hat strategy. Return to the book store. If that book is still on display, place a copy on the floor, drop your drawers and **** all over it. Grab a second copy and tear off a few pages for wiping.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 08 2006,10:18

lol.  You KNEW that was gonna get booted.

still good advice tho...

;)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 12 2006,19:05

Francis, old buddy.  Welcome back.

Tell us again how it's perfectly constitutional to teach ID in public school science classrooms . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 21 2006,05:50

See, that's what it boils down to. All or nothing sectarianism. Poppers ghost obviously thinks that every scientist and atheist must be striving to insult all religious beliefs. Oh by the way did he just call me an illiterate moron? What a surprise! This kind of "flock-loving" guys are great for the cause, yeah, youbetcha
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 21 2006,05:51

Not an inch better, than a christian fanatic neocon. Only of inverted polarity, and walking along his own flock.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 21 2006,21:56

Well thats interesting because unlike Popper's ghost, I did not feel the need to add any insults. Go ahead, PZ, strike this one out now. I know your kind. Confirm my predictions, give me the satisfaction.
Posted by: antiPZ on June 21 2006,21:56

As I was saying in the message before missy PZ wiped it out, for democratic reasons I guess (in the Bush sense of the word):
Poppers ghost reflects the kind of dicotoomous thinking that PZ harvests. Basically that if your´re not bent on insulting religion, you can´t be a scientist or an atheist. Black or white. Oh and did Poppers ghost call me an illiterate moron? What a surprise! These guys are great for the evolution cause. They insult, they like moving in flocks (PZ herdsman), you know, not an inch better than a christian fanatic neocon, but of inverted polarity.
Posted by: antiPZ on June 21 2006,21:57

any other lamb of PZ's herd wanting to show up and confirm what I say about their brainwashed dichotomous thinking?
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 21 2006,21:57

Sure, I can't spell,  but I'm not dumb enough to invoke "rational thinking" on my side on a common spat like this...But laas, what would religion-bashers do if they could not invoke rational thinking at every step, you know, like a magic wand? I wonder if they are just dumb enough not to realize anyone can see through that.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 21 2006,21:57

Wow, Popghost, you can use a dictionary...I'm impressed. I guess you excell in "rational thinking" hahaha.
Numb-boring, atheism is not about mindlessly hailing to the flag of rational thinking. You actually just wear out the concept by the magic-wand misuse you guys make of it.
Instead of just focusing on whether I am "rational" or not (fascinating debate, dudes) think about just how casually you invoke the concept! You guys may learn a lesson from good ole Antipz.
Posted by: Henry J on June 22 2006,06:33

Seems the spammers are no longer sticking to the older threads... :(
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,07:55

Wheel's got a very good point there, too
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,07:55

Taking whatever wrong people have said is a miserable endeavour. Lets take the GOOD things people have said.  I think Gandhi nails it pretty nicely there on the subject of morality. I also like what he says of being prepared to assume the costs of non violence. I find cool what he did about the muslim boy in the movie. The lesson once again is a trivialization of cult differences. All of that is good stuff.  
If we were to make a list of cool things gandhi or the dalai lama have said, I have no doubt that it will greatly exceed the  list of  the uncool. Furthermore, I bet that regarding human relations, we will find far more good thoughts, and far more enlightening, than what  most scientists have ever said. This is not to demean science, only to ackowledge the differences of inmediate concerns of the  jobs. Science  mostly works several domain-leaps  away from the complex realities of human  interactions, whereas some religious men have thought profoundly about them and even dealt with them directly, in admirable ways.
A student once approached Einstein and told him he wanted to do good for humanity, and asked him whether physics was the way. Einstein's answer was: whatever physisicists have done, is nothing, in comparison to the works of Jesus and Buddha
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,07:55

Just for the record, note that PZ has wiped out all my previous comments. We all know here there was no good reason to do that, specilly taking into account that converstaion was, in fact, spinnning. The man likes to dish it out but can't take any. Even if there are no insults involved, just sting. Good Job, PZ, I'll recommend you in the bush administration to clean up their dirty trails. Do you really care that much about your image? That's sad, honestly.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,07:55

As for me this just lumps the pandas thumb as another blog controlled by some total jerk with a scissor.Funny,  I thought, it was different, you know, communitarian. I Didn't know it was just another pissing ground for PZ. Since conditions for equal, free conversation are unavailable here, I quit.  Good bye.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2006,07:58

Buh bye, fluff fluff
Posted by: BWE on June 22 2006,08:12

Y'know,

I just read all his posts and I am not sure exactly how they started out OT? His moniker is a little confrontational, true but why the deletions?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I was saying in the message before missy PZ wiped it out, for democratic reasons I guess (in the Bush sense of the word):
Poppers ghost reflects the kind of dicotoomous thinking that PZ harvests. Basically that if your´re not bent on insulting religion, you can´t be a scientist or an atheist. Black or white. Oh and did Poppers ghost call me an illiterate moron? What a surprise! These guys are great for the evolution cause. They insult, they like moving in flocks (PZ herdsman), you know, not an inch better than a christian fanatic neocon, but of inverted polarity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That seems like a reasonable, if testy comment. And, considering the topic, I would say On-T.

What am I missing?
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,09:19

you SUCK like no other
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,09:19

thanks PZ, for continuing with the message wipe outs. I told you I knew your kind perfectly well. Too bad foul playing pigheads like you want to stand as representatives of science. All the better for ID and creationism.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2006,09:51

Quote (BWE @ June 22 2006,13:12)
Y'know,

I just read all his posts and I am not sure exactly how they started out OT? His moniker is a little confrontational, true but why the deletions?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I was saying in the message before missy PZ wiped it out, for democratic reasons I guess (in the Bush sense of the word):
Poppers ghost reflects the kind of dicotoomous thinking that PZ harvests. Basically that if your´re not bent on insulting religion, you can´t be a scientist or an atheist. Black or white. Oh and did Poppers ghost call me an illiterate moron? What a surprise! These guys are great for the evolution cause. They insult, they like moving in flocks (PZ herdsman), you know, not an inch better than a christian fanatic neocon, but of inverted polarity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That seems like a reasonable, if testy comment. And, considering the topic, I would say On-T.

What am I missing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they're responding to a certain looniness between the lines on antiPZ's posts.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,10:09

cephalopods don't deserve a monster like you piggybacking on their coolness
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2006,10:12

Quote (Guest @ June 22 2006,15:09)
cephalopods don't deserve a monster like you piggybacking on their coolness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point.

Think it's DaveScot going deep undercover?
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2006,10:27

It's very DaveTardy.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,13:16

It is impossible to respond  and have conversation if PZ insists in wiping out perfectly good messages. It is simply stupid to repeat myself on what he has deleted. You guys can keep your shoulder-rubbing club.  Good bye folks, this blog is simply useless.
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,13:50

IF I am allowed a voice, however brief and unread
Those mesaages are in response to PZ wiping out perfectly good ones, like the one about the gandhi quotes. See, PZ wipes out the quotes where you can tell most clearly  I`m a scientist and atheist, and leaves only those he thinks will allow you to  convince yoursels  to say "yeaaah, he must be one of those darn religious"  so you children won't have any nightmares, or any doubts stirring  your pure souls.This naturally pisses me off so PZ gets some well deserved reactions as well.
If some of my retorts seem nonsensical, it is because lame ole PZ is dipping the scissor all the time. And no, I have not found any of my quotes in the bathroom wall.
Im sure this will be erased soon enough, to keep appeareances. Good bye, kiddies, live in the bliss of Pz paradise
Posted by: pzmyers on June 22 2006,13:55

Quote (Guest @ June 22 2006,18:50)
And no, I have not found any of my quotes in the bathroom wall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If he's the anti-PZ, I must be a freakin' genius.


Posted by: pzmyers on June 22 2006,14:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That seems like a reasonable, if testy comment. And, considering the topic, I would say On-T.

What am I missing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"AntiPZ" is not on-topic at all; the thread is about the recent election of someone with biology training to high rank in the Episcopalian church. He lurched into the thread in full-on obnoxious confrontation mode, and he is basically being evicted on sight every time he tries to re-engage.

He doesn't seem to be getting the message, though. At this point he might as well consider himself banned for being too stupid to post.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2006,14:04

Well that depends, PZ.  What was your SAT score?

:)
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2006,14:07

For those not paying attention, < See this thread > to explain the SAT quip.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,14:07

naw, we didn't need someone with a negative IQ to tell us you were already a genius, there PZ.

;)
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 22 2006,14:59

Before you use your allmighty powers to cut off the thread, acknowledge to yourself  that you wiped the one below for absolutely  no good reason. It is on topic, and certainly deserves to be on this thread (but of course, anyone wishing to merely insult me is just perfectly on-topic and can remain)

"Taking whatever wrong people have said is a miserable endeavour. Lets take the GOOD things people have said.  I think Gandhi nails it pretty nicely there on the subject of morality. I also like what he says of being prepared to assume the costs of non violence. I find cool what he did about the muslim boy in the movie. The lesson once again is a trivialization of cult differences. All of that is good stuff.  
If we were to make a list of cool things gandhi or the dalai lama have said, I have no doubt that it will greatly exceed the  list of  the uncool. Furthermore, I bet that regarding human relations, we will find far more good thoughts, and far more enlightening, than what  most scientists have ever said. This is not to demean science, only to ackowledge the differences of inmediate concerns of the  jobs. Science  mostly works several domain-leaps  away from the complex realities of human  interactions, whereas some religious men have thought profoundly about them and even dealt with them directly, in admirable ways.
A student once approached Einstein and told him he wanted to do good for humanity, and asked him whether physics was the way. Einstein's answer was: whatever physisicists have done, is nothing, in comparison to the works of Jesus and Buddha"
Posted by: normdoering on June 22 2006,15:03

Quote (Guest @ June 22 2006,18:50)
I`m a scientist and atheist, ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe you.

Which branch of science? As far as I know unless all you've got is a B.S. degree then you have to have degrees in some specific branch of science. Which general branch is it? Computer science, physics, geology, biochemistry...? What kind of research do you do?

Also, explain why you are an atheist.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,16:23

Hi, Im antipz but I have changed name not to honor PZ anymore haha
Why should you believe anything I say? Anyway, if you're trying to fit me into something, youre going to have to deal with the fact that I am a paleobiologist, doing my postdoc on the developmental evolution of tetrapod limbs.
I am an atheist because I dont give a cent for the idea that actually, you know, there is some kind of conscious being blablabla However I do not hold that others must share my opinion. That is each person's decision and responsibility. I decide to be an atheist. YOU can be anything you want.  
I hate Dawkin's science, among good evolutionary biologists everyone knows his selfish gene stuff is the purest crap. And of course I do not share his vulgar, easy  attack on religon. For example, he says, "the more I know about evolution, the more I move from agnosticism to atheism" That is so stupid, it only makes sense if you still have hopes, and how on earth does growing knowledge on the mechanisms of evolution increasingly refutes God? What does that have to do with god at all? Its amazingly silly.
The point is: god has nothing to do with evolution. And I'm interested in evolution, not god. I hate it when people like stupid EO Wilson say the best thing evolution has done is refute god. Lets talk about evolution, for Bateson's sake

Convinced yet?

Science is about describing mechanisms. Sure, if you want, crystals, the orbits of planets, the atom and organisms reflect the intelligence of god, to me people are welcome to think that as long as they know that in the realm of science, these things are discussed in terms of observations and mechanism, such that anyone can engage in this discussion, regardless of whether he accepts the idea an intelligenece may or may not be reflected there.
I believe this is perfectly understood by many intelligent religious people, and even in entire religions, like hinduism and buddhism. Remember the muslim "trust Allah, but dont forget to tie your camel" hahaha

Like if the study of nature can tell us something about the existence or not of god. And no, it never will prove or disprove it.

I hope you realize that PZ does something very silly when he simply attacks all religion declaring a war to the death where we cannot coexist. Hey, people turn to fanatic religion (or some other stupid ideology) not because they're "simply stupid" but for human, real world circumstances. Buy to guys like PZ (and his real master silly Dawkins), these historical and material realities are "the details". Their attitude is simplistic, stuck- up and useless. Preaching to the choir, stuck up creeps that rub each other shoulders and believe almost everyone but them is stupid so they are free to insult. You can see right through these chauvinistic fools .
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,16:44

ahh, i see you found the BW, where you said your posts didn't exist.

I'm not terribly interested in your rants, but one thing caught my eye:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stupid EO Wilson say the best thing evolution has done is refute god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's an interesting tidbit.  with all the things Wilson has said, I don't recall that one specifically.  Can you recall where you mined that quote from?
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,17:02

See, fools like this are only interested in evolution, insofar it deals with God. Paleontology, development, no, not that interesting. God and religion bashing, Oh goody goody yes!!!
Its in the introduction Wilson wrote to the reedition of the atrociously abridged books of darwin. Go ahead and use it as stupidly as you can.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,17:10

that's not good enough. If you could track down the exact abridged version you mean, that would be a bit more helpful.  I spent a half hour searching, and can't find any abridged versions of Origins, for example, that have introductions by EO Wilson.  Several versions with introductions by other biologists, but not Ed.

bottom line, I doubt he really said what you seem to think he said. It's possible, but I'd like to see it for myself. I bet he said something more along the lines of evolutionary theory being a good example of where god is not needed to explain what we observe.

...and stop your idiotic ranting for a little while. maybe when you turn off that part of your brain that feels the need to rant, something actually useful will come out of your keyboard.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,17:51

< http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155 >
Posted by: stevestory on June 22 2006,17:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi, Im antipz... youre...dont...Dawkin's...Its amazingly silly...Lets...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is English your first language?
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,18:20

Of course god is not NEEDED to explain organisms or anything else we see.  Thats not a very impressive thought to me. You may add or take god, it won't do much of a difference to a properly scientific understanding of what we see. I don't need a pile of evolution data to know that, nor will anyone who understands the true spirit of science.
As poet Nicanor Parra humorously put it in his "Ultimatum":
Either god is in everything, or he is in nothing.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,18:25

So what? probably that's why I dont like moving in herds as much as you frivolous gringos
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,18:51

Is this the introduction you apparently find so offensive:

< http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110518.html >

I could not find where Wilson said that "the best thing evolution has done is refute god."

maybe you can find it.

I did find this passage relevant, however:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, will science and religion find common ground, or at least agree to divide the fundamentals into mutually exclusive domains? A great many well-meaning scholars believe that such rapprochement is both possible and desirable. A few disagree, and I am one of them. I think Darwin would have held to the same position. The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faith-based religion.

Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. In the early part of this century, the toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.

In any case, the dilemma to be solved is truly profound. On the one side the input of religion on human history has been beneficent in many ways. It has generated much of which is best in culture, including the ideals of altruism and public service. From the beginning of history it has inspired the arts. Creation myths were in a sense the beginning of science itself. Fabricating them was the best the early scribes could do to explain the universe and human existence.

Yet the high risk is the ease with which alliances between religions and tribalism are made. Then comes bigotry and the dehumanization of infidels. Our gods, the true believer asserts, stand against your false idols, our spiritual purity against your corruption, our divinely sanctioned knowledge against your errancy. In past ages the posture provided an advantage. It united each tribe during life-and-death struggles with other tribes. It buoyed the devotees with a sense of superiority. It sacralized tribal laws and mores, and encouraged altruistic behaviors. Through sacred rites it lent solemnity to the passages of life. And it comforted the anxious and afflicted. For all this and more it gave people an identity and purpose, and vouchsafed tribal fitness yet, unfortunately, at the expense of less united or otherwise less fortunate tribes.

Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.


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



like dawkins, he sees the problems arising from religious fundametnalism, but unlike him, I think Ed doesn't want to completely abandon the good things that religion has provided throughout history:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the input of religion on human history has been beneficent in many ways. It has generated much of which is best in culture, including the ideals of altruism and public service.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



does that sound to you like someone who thinks that the best thing science has done is to refute god?

again, stop your ranting and see the real issues involved here.

see what happens when pure religious fervor is the norm:  take Al qaeda, for example.  would they even exist at all if it wasn't for the very negative aspects of religion Ed himself describes above?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,19:06

Quote (Antipasto @ June 22 2006,23:20)
Of course god is not NEEDED to explain organisms or anything else we see. Thats not a very impressive thought to me. You may add or take god, it won't do much of a difference to a properly scientific understanding of what we see. I don't need a pile of evolution data to know that, nor will anyone who understands the true spirit of science.
As poet Nicanor Parra humorously put it in his "Ultimatum":
Either god is in everything, or he is in nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hmm, if god is not needed to explain something, and god is in everything or he is in nothing....

you've given us only one choice.

he's in nothing.

I don't see a problem with that for people of faith, who don't try to prove god exists by looking for him in the gaps of existence, but the very thing that PZ and Dawkins, and Wilson, and myself, and 99.9% of all scientists see is that there is a large proportion of those who call themselves 'xian' or 'muslim' who apparently have no faith, and feel they must find god revealed in nature, or accept that he IS nothing. With such a strawman for a worldview, it's no surprise to see apologists like Dembski invent a ass-backwards idea like NFL, or Behe create the idea of "irreducible complexity".

Yes, these folks in not accepting the tenants of their professed faith, do damage not only to science and education, but to the larger religions they claim to belong to as well.

At some point, one does have to ask the question:

are these IDiots going to be reigned in by those of the religions they claim? or not?

many have, based on an apparent unwillingness of those who say they do have faith to correct those who apparently don't (specifically the afore mentioned IDiots and creationists), come to the logical conclusion that perhaps the overaching failure is with religion itself.

I for one, don't blame them.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,19:39

haha check out these gems from Wilson!!

< http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/03/21/wilson/ >

"there's a possibility that a god or gods -- I don't think it would resemble anything of the Judeo-Christian variety -- or a super-intelligent force came along and started the universe with a big bang and moved on to the next universe. I can't discount that"

Oh what a great eclectic chap. Am I the only atheist barfing?

"Well, that's a question I'm happy to leave to the astrophysicist -- where the laws of the universe came from and what is the meaning of the origin of existence"

Sure, there is a fair chance that quarks have "made by god" stamped right on them, we biologists just happende to be saved by the bell we didint find it in organism, aaaah that's a relief. Lets pass the ball to the physicists, they are suppa cool and trustworthy

"There's no evidence whatsoever that we're being overseen or directed in our evolution and actions by a supernatural force."

Nah, really? Could that be because its supposed to be a "super-natural" force, Eddie? What kind of evidence were you expecting? aw fuggedaboutit

Brilliant epistemology that of Wilson, its just "all about the evidence" huh? What a great empiricist. The only detail is "what" kind of evidence hahaha
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 22 2006,19:44

Is Antipasto by any chance related to Thordaddy?

The style seems awfully familiar...
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,19:53

I bought that book but gave it away, disgusted by the excessive editing of Darwin and the intellectual mediocrity of Wilson

The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faith-based religion

WHY, for earths sake, WHY does Ed believe this.Because he wants this to be a triumph of biology?  And he could make up his mind, he says elsewhere the battle line is astrophysics. But all of this is crap. If the history of humanity were not a detail for Ed, he would realize atheism and humanism has spearheaded by social scientists,  philosophers and the kind. And if he were smarter he would realize these areas are more reliable than biology to preserve atheism now and in the future.



take Al qaeda, for example.  would they even exist at all if it wasn't for the very negative aspects of religion Ed himself describes above?

Take Nazism for example. Anyway this is a sterile debate and you know it. All I can say is that blaming all of that on religion is simplistic and silly. Religious fanatism can be a tool, like ideology can be.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2006,19:55

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2006,00:44)
Is Antipasto by any chance related to Thordaddy?

The style seems awfully familiar...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask him about gay marriage. That'll tell us right away.

Antipasto, what is your first language?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 22 2006,20:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
intellectual mediocrity of Wilson

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



LOL.  yeah.  he was so mediocre he published more than 50 books, won dozens of awards for his work, started an entire subfield of evolutionary biology, and published hundreds of important papers on evolutionary theory and entomology.

I should be so mediocre.

You sir, are an idiot.

Moreover, You are a liar.  You were NOT able to find the quote you attributed to Wilson in the introduction to the compliation you cited, cause it ain't in there.

you probably got the idea from a second hand source of idiocy like the Salon article you decided to quote instead.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take Nazism for example
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oops. I invoke Godwin's law.  You lose, defacto.

it works especially well in this case, as the reference to naziism is particularly irrelevant to the point i was making.

Why do I think that PZ has seen you before?  I can see why he just flung your crap onto the BW.

oh well, Godwin says you're done.  Why should i disagree?

bye bye.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,20:11

hmm, if god is not needed to explain something, and god is in everything or he is in nothing....you've given us only one choice.he's in nothing

God is certainly is not needed for a SCIENTIFIC explanation, but god can provide an explanation, sure. An ULTIMATE, "total wrap" kind of explanation.

'xian' or 'muslim' who apparently have no faith, and feel they must find god revealed in nature, or accept that he IS nothing.  With such a strawman for a worldview, it's no surprise to see apologists like Dembski invent a ass-backwards idea like NFL, or Behe create the idea of "irreducible complexity".

No. The answer for them should be god is in everything. The guys you say dont do that, they want to be scientific about god, scientifically prove the supernatural. Which makes no sense


Yes, these folks in not accepting the tenants of their very own faith, do damage not only to science and education, but to the larger religions they claim to belong to as well.

I agree, but thats because they are trying to come off as scientists. Theyve got it all wrong about science and about  faith.

At some point, one does have to ask the question:
are these IDiots going to be reigned in by those of the religions they claim?  or not?

Depends in part if people like PZ and Dawkins end up trying to ban all religion lumping them with those who do understand   both faith and science

perhaps the overaching failure is with religion itself

Its a social thing at large. It is also a failure of science.  Human historical, economical and social reality comes first, everything else, including the science-religion equilibrium,  stems from that.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,20:18

How about a rule about easy invocation of al qaeda?
I think you've managed to excuse your from some real thought.
I dont care how many books wilson has written, his sociobiology stuff is highly speculative crap. And did you read his thoughts? It s just plain shallow scientificism, knee bending to physics included. It does not get much worse than that.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,20:26

you guys have never seen me before but its amazing, "who I am" seems a very important topic.. how about using your brainies instead and try saying something actually to the point?
Posted by: Antipasto on June 22 2006,20:49

Ichthyic, youve shown elements of thought, that I think should be enough for you to realize that Wilsons "conditional deism" or whatever he calls it, is in fact a major flop into the same confusion of not understanding well neither faith, nor science.  
You SHOULD realize. That is, if you manage to get over your the beheading of Wilson as your inquestinable hero of youth (just look how you got all pissed over your love for the man)
Posted by: Antipasto on June 23 2006,05:34

If you guys were more familiar with the field of evolutionary biology you would know that Wilson's ultra-darwinian views are not agreed upon at all. Or if only you read more of your Gould. Stop the brainless veneration of icons.
Posted by: George on June 23 2006,11:53

test
Posted by: k.e on June 24 2006,05:13

Ant Pisso seems to me to be an atheist Catholic, not that there is anything wrong with that, but amusing to see all the same. It must be giving him quite a headache.
Posted by: plasmasnake23 on June 24 2006,06:29

You know antipasto maybe people aren't responding to you very much because you are coming off as a condescending person who has all the answers while everyone else is stuck in the thralls of hero worship and scientific ignorance.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 24 2006,06:35

Hey Plas,

I believe Ich invoked Godwin's Law a page or two back.  Nobody is responding because A.P. loses automatically.  The argument is over, A.P. is an idiot, life goes on.

Oh yeah, water is wet, the sky is blue, and women have secrets.

Peace,

Lou
Posted by: Antipasto on June 24 2006,06:55

Plasmasnake, I agree, but this is the bathroom wall, I was excluded from the PT and I am just begginning to cool off. I bega being wiped out the PT systematcally for no good reason, only because of PZ's was afraid I would hurt his public relations. He does not want to lose his flock of mindless cheerleaders, which of course could  just plainly insult me or go off topic and remain in the PT. So I'm still cooling of , becuase PZ, mind you, DOES suck like no other, and simply should not be an administreator of the PT, either out of lack of maturity or because of conflict of interest. It hurts the debates.

E.K:You won! Everything!!Congratulations!! Now go to bed, creep.

Who said catholic??? Wow. You really use the blind stick badly. Where did you get that one from, the horoscope? But the whole effort to just label and forget me is so, so frivolous and stupid. Is this your guys usual "rational thinking"? You guys should change, for your own good and I totally mean it.
Posted by: Antipasto on June 24 2006,07:00

sorry, that was not E.K., I meant Lou, go to bed haha
Posted by: AntiPZ on June 24 2006,09:28

PZ, can I answer, or will you wipe out my comments?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:49

Dude, you need to start taking your meds again.

Geez.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:49

By the way, I find this entire discussion of elections and voting rather funny, since over in the "Ron Numbers" thread, lots of people seem to be ranting and raving that this is a SCIENCE matter.

Which kind of makes me wonder why on earth "who I voted for in the last election" would matter a rat's ass, if this were really indeed a SCIENCE matter. . . . . . .
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:50

<quote>Simply put, a vote for Nader had the same force as a vote for Bush</quote>

If you say so.  (shrug)

But perhaps a few years of wanna-be-theocracy will do wonders for the Democans' backbone.

Or, demonstrate that they have none.
Posted by: Kevin from nyc on June 24 2006,14:51

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 10:37 PM (e)

and if you didn’t vote against him you voted for him….in selected states such as florida and ohio…no votes counted anywhere else.

I voted for Nader. Both times. In Florida.

And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it. I simply replied “The Democans aren’t ENTITLED to my vote —- they have to EARN it.” (shrug)
"

SO YOU SHRUG YOURSELF .... to be responsible for 120,000+ dead and 50,000 maimed humans and 1,200,000+ dead trees and other life forms.

you are a dog, snarling and biting at the rotting flesh of the politic.

oh I didn't care for Lurch so I said ok to being spied on, tracked and yes I'm all for the death of the death tax

FUKE anyone who voted for NADER especially in Florida......oh you make me sick...
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:52

<quote>He feels that the Dems need to, well, continue to lose elections until that stops. If he expects the Repubs to do this to change their party, he would be hypocritical not to do the same. For those of us without large amounts of cash, it’s really the only way to influence the politicians of any stripe. In addition, he voted for the person that he thought would do the best job.</quote>

As I said before, the Democans are not ENTITLED to my vote.  They have to EARN it.

And they have not.  They should change their party sumbol from the donkey to the jellyfish.


<quote>I would, however, agree with Bill Gascoyne and Jim Wynne that at least in the last election the stakes were too high and it would have been better to have been more pragmatic to have voted for someone less likely to lead us down the road we’re on, who had a chance of winning.</quote>


Bah.  The Democans haven't done a #### thing to stop Bush or the fundies.  No surprise, since they follow the same agenda, just in a "kinder and gentler" version.

What we need is a real opposition party.  Not just Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.
Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD on June 24 2006,14:52

I'd like to point out that Lenny is being      self-consistent here.

He has, many times, pointed out that unless rank and file Repubs start voting against the fundies that get nominated in primaries, the GOP will remain beholden to the religious right.  I think his words have been something on the order of, "unless the Repubs start losing elections, they will continue to nominate fundies".

I would guess, based on his many posts, that he feels a closer kinship to the Dems than the Repubs, but feels that the Dems are beholden to interests that are unpalatable to him.  He feels that the Dems need to, well, continue to lose elections until that stops.  If he expects the Repubs to do this to change their party, he would be hypocritical not to do the same.  For those of us without large amounts of cash, it's really the only way to influence the politicians of any stripe.  In addition, he voted for the person that he thought would do the best job.

I would, however, agree with Bill Gascoyne and Jim Wynne that at least in the last election the stakes were too high and it would have been better to have been more pragmatic to have voted for someone less likely to lead us down the road we're on, who had a chance of winning.
Posted by: Jim Wynne on June 24 2006,14:52

<quote author="Lenny">I assure you that my vote was anything other than “symbolism”</quote>
Seems an odd thing to say for someone who likes to think of himself as being a member of the reality-based community. It has the ring of truthiness.

<quote author="Bill Gascoyne">The notion that votes cast for a third-party candidate are meaningless is self-fulfilling. An election is not a means of betting, it’s a binding opinion poll.</quote>

I didn't say that Lenny's vote was "meaningless," I said it was (in effect) symbolic. Symbols have meaning.  A presidential election is a means of determining who gets to be president, and when it's clear that a vote for one candidate is impotent in terms of getting that person elected, but will serve to get a dangerous idiot into office, voting one's personal preferences (or using the vote to express an impotent opinion) is to favor limp idealism over pragmatic reality. Simply put, a vote for Nader had the same force as a vote for Bush, and anyone with a brain had to know that going in--there's no getting around it. Sometimes--not always, I'll grant--people with lofty ideals need to leave them in the car before going into the polling place, and do what needs to be done.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:53

<quote>By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the symbolism of your vote was more important than the consequences of it. (shrug)</quote>

I assure you that my vote was anything other than "symbolism".  I voted for the guy I thought would do the best job.  Isn't that what we are, uh, SUPPOSED to do?

Sorry if you don't like my vote.  (shrug)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:53

<quote>People are quite good at being unable to see trivial logical truths, even tautologies, that require only a modicum of thought to recognize.</quote>

That would be, of course, people other than YOU.

Right?
Posted by: Jim Wynne on June 24 2006,14:53

<quote author="Lenny">I voted for Nader. Both times. In Florida.

And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it. I simply replied “The Democans aren’t ENTITLED to my vote —- they have to EARN it.” (shrug),</quote>

By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the <i>symbolism</i> of your vote was more important than the <i>consequences</i>  of it. (shrug)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:54

<quote>and if you didn’t vote against him you voted for him….in selected states such as florida and ohio…no votes counted anywhere else.</quote>

I voted for Nader.  Both times.  In Florida.

And to all my Democan friends who harangued me for years about it.  I simply replied "The Democans aren't ENTITLED to my vote --- they have to EARN it."  (shrug)
Posted by: Kevin from nyc on June 24 2006,14:54

to follow up anyone who voted for Bush the first time is responsible for not stopping 9/11 and destroying the environment and killing 100,000 rat-ass Iraquis.

Anyone who voted for him the second time is a thief and a traitor.

and if you didn't vote against him you voted for him....in selected states such as florida and ohio...no votes counted anywhere else.
Posted by: Kevin from nyc on June 24 2006,14:55

sorry Lenny

"Because the Democans ran two utter idiots against him. (shrug)

*I* didn’t vote for either of them. Does that, in your view, make me a fundie …. ?"

NO JUST STUPID!

how you could not vote for ABB is beyond me.  didn;t you know what that little weasel was going to do?  

(ABB = anybody but bush)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24 2006,14:55

<quote>Okay, then how did George W. Bush get elected twice?</quote>

Because the Democans ran two utter idiots against him.  (shrug)

*I* didn't vote for either of them.  Does that, in your view, make me a fundie . . . . ?


<quote>

How did Rick Santorum get elected?

Why is Sean Hannity rich and on TV, not to mention Rush Limpballs?

How did Ann Coulter’s “Godless” hit number one at Amazon the week it came out?</quote>

I'm not sure how you are getting from A to B here . . . .

Is it your opinion that no Christians oppose any of these people?  If so, you need to get out of the house more often.  (shrug)

<quote>Well, you did say the world, not the U.S. alone. But isn’t Christianity bigger in the third world while it’s dying in Europe?</quote>


Yep.

So what?
Posted by: Moses on June 24 2006,14:56

Yeah, but they don't have Carol's special bible or DaveTard's massive brain...  So what do they know?

BTW, "DaveTard" needs to be added to the spellchecker.  Although I admit get some small pleasure in hitting the "ignore" button.
Posted by: normdoering on June 24 2006,14:56

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
<quote>Most Christians, worldwide, have always thought that the fundies are just as nutty as everyone here thinks they are.</quote>

Okay, then how did George W. Bush get elected twice?

How did Rick Santorum get elected?

Why is Sean Hannity rich and on TV, not to mention Rush Limpballs?

How did Ann Coulter's "Godless" hit number one at Amazon the week it came out?

Well, you did say the world, not the U.S. alone. But isn't Christianity bigger in the third world while it's dying in Europe?
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 24 2006,15:11

Ahhhhh, feeling the love today.  :D
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2006,17:58

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 24 2006,20:11)
Ahhhhh, feeling the love today. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still more pleasant than reading Antipasto. :p
Posted by: plasmasnake23 on June 24 2006,18:20

I guess I've been mistaken about the political process. I thought the point was to vote for who you thought would do the best job leading the country. I didn't realize it was a popularity contest between whoever the republicans and democrats nominate. I'm pretty sure it was everybody who voted for Bush who got him elected, rather than people who voted for somebody else.


I'd also like to mention that your argument about political pragmatism in voting loses force when you posted

"PZ

I am ver y very disappointed to hear that you do not advocate to

1. threaten to shoot all the Christians,
2. call all religious people idiots,
3. suggest that we need to convert all the religious people to atheism, or
4. deny that religious people contribute to science.

because you would have been 100% in the right to do so"

, Kevin. That doesn't seem particularly pragmatic in light of our theistic evolutionist brethren.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 25 2006,07:54

PZ is of course entitled to his opinions.  

I of course have no interest in PZ's dick-waving.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 25 2006,12:50

Thanks for removing my comment, Mr Dembski.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 25 2006,14:23

Hey Heywood, you're blithering again.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:25

So I take it the group hug is now over?
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,13:25

Agreed, Stephen.

<b>PZ Myers bids ONE cheap shot.  Do I hear TWO?</b>
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:25

My goodness, PZ seems awfully determined to pick a fight, doesn't he . . . . . .
Posted by: pzmyers on June 27 2006,13:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My goodness, PZ seems awfully determined to pick a fight, doesn't he . . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I also have a tremendously unfair advantage. You really don't want to pick a fight you can't win.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:30

<quote>and Lenny, you aren’t doing anybody any favors by continually pulling chains either.</quote>

Bah, my goal now is just to turn this into the longest PT thread ever.

PZ can keep preaching if he wants.  It doesn't appear that anyone outside the choir is listening to him anyway.  

;)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:30

Oh, and as for the UDers, I have just two letters:

F U
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,13:31

<b>The Reverend Doctor bids TWO!  Do I hear THREE?  Anyone?</b>
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,13:39

Awww... PZ lost his sense of humor.  Oh well.  I've said repeatedly that you're not somebody at PT until you've been banished to the bathroom wall.

WooooHooooo!

I feel all warm and fuzzy now.  Thanks PZ.

You don't actually think there is going to be any productive conversation on that thread do you?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:39

<quote>Scott’s claim is the usual creationist argument from ignorance, coupled to bald assertion. “All body plans arose in the Cambrian!” is conflated to something analogous to “Every species appeared suddenly in the fossil record!”</quote>

Oddly enough, too, the creatiokooks never seem to mention the fact that there are no plants --- not a single solitary one -- in the Cambrian.

And no land animals of any sort.

No mammals.  

No fish.

No reptiles.

No birds.

No amphibians.

No insects.

No crustaceans.

Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . . .
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:42

Hey PZ, if you're gonna remove my comments, would you mind removing that last one, too?

Thanks.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,13:50

I'm just curious, PZ --- are you going to remove me from ALL your threads, or just the ones that you want to preach, uninterrupted, on?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,14:00

I guess that answers that question then, huh.

Ah well.  The censor's scissors has always been the last resort of extremist ideologues.  (shrug)

Thanks for showing your true colors, PZ.  Like I said before, I would not want to live in a world run by you.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,14:00

Well I guess that answers that.  Guess I'll be looking for good spider science elsewhere.  I like my science with reason and humor.
Posted by: pzmyers on June 27 2006,14:04

Go ahead, Lenny, claim that I'm silencing all of your substantive contributions to the discussion.

We really need oodles of dick-swinging comments, I'm sure.

And in case you hadn't noticed, people are disagreeing with me, and I'm not throwing their comments to the bathroom wall. Am I just inconsistent? Or is it just you?
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,14:06

dick waving PZ.
Posted by: pzmyers on June 27 2006,14:15

Swinging, waving, doing lariat tricks...I don't care. I don't see any virtue to his 'contributions', so he won't be making any more.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,14:20

Lighten up, PZ.  You're quickly becoming the best argument against your own position.  A position, I will add, which I share.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,14:30

Quote (pzmyers @ June 27 2006,18:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My goodness, PZ seems awfully determined to pick a fight, doesn't he . . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I also have a tremendously unfair advantage. You really don't want to pick a fight you can't win.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Yes, PZ, an unfair advantage -- the censor's scissors.

As is, indeed, always the last resort of extremist ideologues.

As I said, I would not want to live in a world run by you.  (shrug)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2006,14:36

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2006,18:39)
Awww... PZ lost his sense of humor. Oh well. I've said repeatedly that you're not somebody at PT until you've been banished to the bathroom wall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you're not somebody at ATBC until DaveScot bans you, preferably with an insult. :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,15:00

####, Arden.  Just when I thought I had become somebody, now you tell me I have to go slumming over there and try to get at least one comment up before I get banned.  Yeah, that's gonna happen.

You're not even gettin' one post up, Lou FCD you commie atheist.  You're outta here before you get here. -dt
Posted by: pzmyers on June 27 2006,15:06

As I said, you don't get to claim injury and oppression when you're getting kicked to the bathroom wall for a parade of dick-waving jokes.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2006,15:09

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2006,19:20)
Lighten up, PZ. You're quickly becoming the best argument against your own position. A position, I will add, which I share.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um yeah, I agree. I'm an admirer of your work, PZ, but you're taking this WAY too seriously...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,15:09

Ah, is THAT why . . . . . .
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,15:11

I think I might have only made one dick waving joke.  What about me?  Can I claim injury and oppression?  Is there a three dick waving joke minimum or anything?

I can come back and make up the difference if you want, but somehow I don't think you'd see the humor.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2006,15:17

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2006,20:00)
####, Arden. Just when I thought I had become somebody, now you tell me I have to go slumming over there and try to get at least one comment up before I get banned. Yeah, that's gonna happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't write the rules, I just report 'em.
;)

And hey, I've only been banned *once*, with only a handful of insults (I think 'dumb bunny' was one). I'm a piker -- there are others here who've been banned at UD twice, AND taken the brunt of one of DT's low-rent google swiftboatings, where he spends a whole afternoon digging up internet dirt on someone and gleefully posts it on the internet. Compared to that, I've hardly even stepped on his toes.

So get to work, dagnabbit! It's easy - go onto UD and ask DT if it's normal for 'real scientists' to give their SAT scores and magazine subscriptions in their 'CV's'. :p

No, but it's normal for me to spend the night with your mama. You don't even have the guts to come onto my site and GET banned. Homo.-dt
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2006,15:20



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

Bah, my goal now is just to turn this into the longest PT thread ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Doubtful. It's only at 623 and I think there was one last winter that clicked over into the 4 digits, wasn't there?
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2006,15:24

Thanks Arden, that's actually the best laugh I've had all day, which is saying something considering the thread I got tossed from.

Ok, the gauntlet is thrown, and I choose to pick it up.  Of course, DaveTard reads all this, so I'll not be able to do it right away.

Hear that DaveTard?  The challenge is on for me to get one post up on your little fan club board before you catch me and ban me.

Maybe I'll sneak in and ban your Mama - LouFCD
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2006,17:26

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2006,20:24)
Thanks Arden, that's actually the best laugh I've had all day, which is saying something considering the thread I got tossed from.

Ok, the gauntlet is thrown, and I choose to pick it up. Of course, DaveTard reads all this, so I'll not be able to do it right away.

Hear that DaveTard? The challenge is on for me to get one post up on your little fan club board before you catch me and ban me.

Maybe I'll sneak in and ban your Mama - LouFCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, make sure you get the insult. Merely posting something intelligent that they can't handle won't necessarily do that -- you could just be silently deleted and not even know if you're truly banned. You have to explain some obvious reason why some pet theory Dave is trying out can't work, or push some other buttons of his (like our friend who pointed out that SciAm isn't a 'hard science' journal). When he inserts some snide boldfaced comment into your message, with either an outright insult or at least a statement that 'you don't belong', you've arrived.

And you're right, wait at least 1-2 weeks, maybe with a fake name. Lose that 'FCD', for sure.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 27 2006,18:49

Hey PZ, are you gonna tell the folks in this thread that you're removing my comments  . . . . . ?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:26

Getting back to the subject, it should perhaps be pointed out that spider silk didn't originally evolve for making webs.  The group of arthropods from whcih spiders may (or may not have) evolved, the trigonotarbids, didn't have any spinnerets and presumably didn't have any silk.  One of the earliest known spiders, Attercopus, at 380 million years, did. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of spiders is that they have spinnerets.

Some of the most primitive of the existing spiders are the mygalomorphs, the group that includes the tarantulas.  Some living species of tarantula-like spiders still have segmented apparent in their abdomens, and they are probably very similar to the most primitive of spiders.  This group goes back to 300 million years in the fossil record.  And although they have spinnerets and produce silk, they don't make webs.  Their silk is used largely to make eggsacs, and to line the burrows that they live in.  A few species of trapdoor spiders use silklen lines to make a radiating pattern with their burrow at the center, which alerts them to passing prey.  It seems likely that prey-catching webs were a (much) later modification of that strategy.

There are also arboreal species of tarantula, which live in silken shelters that they spin high up in trees.  They too, however, don't make webs.  It seems a good likelihood that they adapted to an arboreal lifestyle in order to avoid monsoon rains which flooded their terrestrial burrows, and it seems likely that the modern orb-weaving spiders began with a similar lifestyle.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:26

Well, I don't know if PZ is still censoring my posts, but I will just sit back and let everyone have their religious war.

Have fun.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:41

Quote (Guest @ June 28 2006,06:26)
Getting back to the subject, it should perhaps be pointed out that spider silk didn't originally evolve for making webs.  The group of arthropods from whcih spiders may (or may not have) evolved, the trigonotarbids, didn't have any spinnerets and presumably didn't have any silk.  One of the earliest known spiders, Attercopus, at 380 million years, did. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of spiders is that they have spinnerets.

Some of the most primitive of the existing spiders are the mygalomorphs, the group that includes the tarantulas.  Some living species of tarantula-like spiders still have segmented apparent in their abdomens, and they are probably very similar to the most primitive of spiders.  This group goes back to 300 million years in the fossil record.  And although they have spinnerets and produce silk, they don't make webs.  Their silk is used largely to make eggsacs, and to line the burrows that they live in.  A few species of trapdoor spiders use silklen lines to make a radiating pattern with their burrow at the center, which alerts them to passing prey.  It seems likely that prey-catching webs were a (much) later modification of that strategy.

There are also arboreal species of tarantula, which live in silken shelters that they spin high up in trees.  They too, however, don't make webs.  It seems a good likelihood that they adapted to an arboreal lifestyle in order to avoid monsoon rains which flooded their terrestrial burrows, and it seems likely that the modern orb-weaving spiders began with a similar lifestyle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can anyone point out anything remotely objectionable in this post, placed in the "spider" thread, that would require it to be banished to the Wall?  

Other than the simple fact that I am the one who wrote it, and PZ now has a hard-on for me?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:45

Quote (pzmyers @ June 27 2006,19:04)
Go ahead, Lenny, claim that I'm silencing all of your substantive contributions to the discussion.

We really need oodles of dick-swinging comments, I'm sure.

And in case you hadn't noticed, people are disagreeing with me, and I'm not throwing their comments to the bathroom wall. Am I just inconsistent? Or is it just you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps, PZ, you could explain to everyone what you find objectionable about my spider post?

Other than the simple fact that I'm the one who wrote it?
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:47

Hey PZ, what was objectionable about my spider post?

Other than I am the one who wrote it, and you now have a hard-on for me?
Posted by: pzmyers on June 28 2006,01:51

It's the simple fact that you wrote it.

Just consider yourself banned from any of my comment threads. I'm not going to try and parse your comments, I'm not going to discriminate, I'm not going to delete it based on whether I agree with it or not -- when I see the name "Lenny Flank", it's gone.

Simple rules are best.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,01:56

OK, Chairman.

Thanks for showing everyone your true colors.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 28 2006,02:37

Not to sound corney or anything but, this is exactly what the creationists want.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on June 28 2006,02:57

Yes. Very disappointing. Granted, some of Lenny's specific posts were less than constructive, but wholesale deletion and banning of a person's comments because of who they are without regard to content is arrogant and fascist. It's a shame PZ has stooped this low because of, as I see it, mere ego.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simple rules are best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simple rules for simple minds.

Do I get banned now?
Posted by: pzmyers on June 28 2006,03:09

If I had banned Lenny altogether, it would be the same thing: it wouldn't matter if he <i>intended</i> to write some substantive comment, because of past behavior, he would not be allowed to post it  on PT.

Lenny is not going to appear on any threads which I control, at all. This is the only appropriate and impartial way to do it. If I let him through on comments with which I agree, then he's just going to shriek louder that I'm oppressing him if I pick and choose which of his comments I allow through.

That's the way it's going to be, no arguments. A few of the other contributors to PT have already told me I should have throttled him back at the very start of the Ron Numbers thread, and I agree. He dragged the thread right down into the sewer, and cutting him out has palpably increased the quality of the discussion. It's worked so dramatically well that I'm making it my consistent policy.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 28 2006,03:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He dragged the thread right down into the sewer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently you were reading a different thread than I was.  The one I was reading was off-the-wall, out of control, and a mass free-for-all for many reasons, in many ways, caused by many people and Lenny was no more responsible for that than you were. (or I was, for that matter)

It was fun, let's do it again sometime.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 28 2006,04:54

But wasn't that thread intended to start an argument? I must admit that Lenny tends to post in a very (forthright, shall we say?) manner, but I never noticed a warning given to him (not in plain language anyway).

Tried reading the thread again to see what exactly happened, but it is a bit difficult to follow now.

The thread was @ 400 posts+ when I first read it, so I did skim it.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on June 28 2006,05:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lenny is not going to appear on any threads which I control, at all. This is the only appropriate and impartial way to do it. If I let him through on comments with which I agree, then he's just going to shriek louder that I'm oppressing him if I pick and choose which of his comments I allow through.

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


Which sounds very much as if you are negating what he has to say because you disagree with him--outright censorship of opposing opinions--not because of him "dragging the thread right down into the sewer". Which is it? Is this about behavior or viewpoint?

I respect your viewpoints and read your blog every day, but I think it's sad that you've responded to Lenny's accusations of "dick-waving" with this, well, dick-waving. Lenny can be annoying but I think the cure is much worse than the disease when you start banning people who are so passionately on the right side of most arguments.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 28 2006,05:40



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

A few of the other contributors to PT have already told me I should have throttled him back at the very start of the Ron Numbers thread, and I agree. He dragged the thread right down into the sewer, and cutting him out has palpably increased the quality of the discussion.

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



I think a general commitment to keeping tabs on *all* the comments in our threads is necessary.
Posted by: stevestory on June 28 2006,05:53



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

Tried reading the thread again to see what exactly happened, but it is a bit difficult to follow now.

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



I found it confusing the whole time. The PZ/Lenny fight was unclear to me. I would rather Lenny picked one claim and stuck with it, and tried to argue it persuasively. If that had happened, I'd have some clearer idea who's in the right here. But you don't always get what you wish for.
Posted by: pzmyers on June 28 2006,06:40

It's about behavior. Lenny made no substantive contributions to the thread at all.

I have no problem with disagreement, and the majority of the recent comments on the thread are arguing with me. They seem to be able to do it without resorting to incessant "dick waving" comments, or announcements that they are ignoring me, or the usual clownish schtick Lenny indulges in.

What Lenny was doing was not argument. You want abuse...that's down the hall and to the left.
Posted by: plasmasnake23 on June 28 2006,07:53

I read the thread when it was only about 20 or 30 replies. It seemed to me like pz and lenny were ready to go at it since they knew they disagreed already. In my extremely unimportant opinion they both acted like jerks in their comments. You know I think this stuff is important too, I'm a scientist, but this is just the internet. People say a lot of things and sometimes it's better not to get worked up about it because it's not worth the time it takes. That's not at anyone in particular, just in general. Remember, UD likes to point out internet support as revealing but there are plenty of internet groups for doing things like drawing straight male characters of popular movies and books doing highly unstraight activities. At the end of the day it's just the net.
Posted by: Terry on June 28 2006,12:00

When did the US fight a civil war over slavery?  You should probably research a little further.  The US civil war did not start over slavery.  It started over states rights and whether states rights held over the federal governments.  Most of the founding fathers would have supported the southern states decision to secede from the Union.  Lincoln did not.  If slavery was the big issue maybe you can explain why the confederate states constitution did not allow slavery. Slavery was at its end in the south and at that time the south was preparing to deal with the problems that would surface. Unfortunately the US government never dealt with any of those issues.

The only religion I have ever heard that said blacks were the descendants of Ham is the Mormons.  They still say this.  They do leave an out for the poor cursed African-Americans.  If they lead a truly righteous life, their skin will turn white.  I'm trying to figure out how Michael Jackson fits into this.
Posted by: Coin on June 28 2006,12:00

<quote>It started over states rights and whether states rights held over the federal governments.</quote>

Specifically, states' rights to hold slaves.

Or states' rights to pull entirely out of the United States of America because they don't agree with the outcome of a single presidential election.

Or states' rights to fire on United States federal property with heavy artillery.

Or, y'know, whatever.

<quote author="Terry">the confederate states constitution did not allow slavery</quote>

<url href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm">Um... you go ahead and think that.</url>
Posted by: mara on June 28 2006,12:00

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-- Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Posted by: plasmasnake23 on June 28 2006,12:38

I'll bet 20 bucks that Terry is from the South. I can instantly tick off two of my friends by saying that the civil war was about slavery. They are from georgia and virginia.

P.S. The civil war wasn't only about slavery but it was an important component. You don't have to apologize for your grandfathers. I'm sure plenty of my ancestors were bigots but that doesn't mean I try to whitewash them. Just be happy we know better now.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2006,12:48

It's funny, when Terry made those comments, I immediately tracked down that exact same Alexander Stephens quote in order to post it, only to find that someone had already beaten me to it. Then I started to compose a message saying I had been going to post that quote, too, I noticed that all the posts had disappeared to the Bathroom Wall. Oh well.

Yeah, I'm sure Terry's a southerner. They still say a lot of weird shit about the Civil War. 'War of Northern Aggression' and all that. Why they feel compelled to defend all of their ancestors' worst beliefs and decisions is beyond me, but all my ancestors were 'Yankees', so I guess I wouldn't 'understand'.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 28 2006,13:53

Regarding PZ, it's simply not necessary for me to say a single word.  (shrug)
Posted by: Antipasto on June 29 2006,05:30

When a completely scientific and good remark like Lenny's on spider webs is eliminated, you cannot but acknowledge that there is something tremendously wrong going on at the PT.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,05:32

<quote author="Liar for atheism, RU">But the idea that religious beliefs — of any kind — were necessary to discover that the earth orbits the sun is 100% pure apologetic bullcrap.</quote>

Btw, dumbass, this is one of the places where your dishonesty shows in all of its disgusting awfulness.  
I didn't even suggest that religion was necessary to know that the earth orbits the sun, but then again, I doubt that you're intelligent enough to know that.

The thing is that you're too incompetent even to properly read something that goes against the prejudices of your tiny little mind.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on June 29 2006,05:32

<quote>The issue is how to stop sounding like an ass.</quote>

You could stop posting.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,05:32

<quote author="Liar for atheism, RU">But the idea that religious beliefs — of any kind — were necessary to discover that the earth orbits the sun is 100% pure apologetic bullcrap.

Glen probably is aware of this but the gasbag is so intent on his pointy-headed attempt to get on PZ’s case that he forgot.

By the way, Glen, up above you called me a liar and I asked you to tell me what you were referring to. You got real quiet all of a sudden. What’s the problem? Were you projecting, perhaps?</quote>

Well, that was another lie, dumbass.  I haven't been "real quiet", and what if I had been?

Your whole post wreaks of a lack of education beyond, say, high school (if you have gone to college, you learned almost nothing there).  You're too stupid to do anything but write abuse.  By rights, PZ ought to ban you for doing what Lenny did on this thread.  Beyond that, any intelligent comments are wasted on anyone as loathsomely stupid and dishonest as yourself.

I know your type, for I've dealt with AfDave, who also knows too little even to learn from others.  

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on June 29 2006,05:32

<quote>You don’t ban others who add no content, like Popper’s ghost.</quote>

And you're not banned for being a liar or writing incoherent run-on sentences, but at least you're not intentionally trying to derail a discussion, as Lenny was.
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on June 29 2006,05:33

<quote>Weird. In all honesty, I didn’t see any of that. I thought he was making a pretty reasonable point in fairly clear way</quote>

So are you saying that you are <i>blind</i> to statements like

<quote>Well, PZ, maybe you can hunt me down and drag me before the Inquisition, or whatever the evangelical atheist version of the Inquisition is.
...
you will not win anything WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THOSE TWO-THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON YOUR SIDE THAT ARE THEISTS.

If you want to beat the ID/fundies, you need the help of those non-ID theists.

Like it or not.

So, shooting people that (1) are on your side and (2) whose support you need, is … well … kind of stupid.</quote>

etc. ad nauseam?   You think that PZ is "aggressive" but Lenny's

<quote>in fact, it’s REALLY REALLY stupid.

Which part of that do you find difficult to understand?</quote>

isn't?  That's just the very beginning of this thread; it went on and on.  Try going back and actually <i>reading</i> Lenny's posts, instead of doing an Evelyn Wood scan and then responding to your own projected impression.
Posted by: Registered User on June 29 2006,05:53

Glen

Still can't point to why you called me a liar upthread, Glen? I'm not suprised.

<i>Your whole post wreaks of a lack of education beyond</i>

No, it reaks of someone who has zero tolerance for pointy-headed pontificating gasbags.  Oh, and blogwhoring.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2006,05:53

<quote>
Posted by Registered User on June 29, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Glen...

Oh, and<b> blogwhoring.</b></quote>

What does that mean?
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on June 29 2006,05:53

<quote>Now what was the serious discussion? What did “kevin from nyc” contribute?</quote>

I'm sorry, but that is so effing stupid that it's almost beyond my conprehension how your mind works.  Are you saying that any thread of over 700 posts doesn't contain any serious discussion because some troll is posting there?  Neither PZ nor I were referring to kevin's posts, you git.  Kevin hasn't posted here since the 25th, two days before PZ posted his comment about the discussion having <b>taken</b> a major upswing in seriousness.  How do you bear being such an intellectually dishonest scumbag?

<quote>In the second comment on this thread, PZ’s opening sentence is “Lenny is part of the problem”.</quote>

In response to B. Spitzer's comment about "‘Sides, Lenny’s going to show up any minute to shrug at everybody".  Indeed, Lenny's anti-intellectualism and bad faith tactics <i>are</i> part of the problem, as is your irrelevant garbage here about "kevin from nyc".

Now go ahead, say something else incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,05:54

<quote author="Clouser">I strongly protest such action and will not participate in any such thread. No matter how frequently and strongly he and I disagree, to the point that he uses vile and insulting language, banning him is not in the spirit of free inquiry upon which science is based nor upon the spirit of tolerance upon which atheism claims to be based (in contrast to religion, they say). It is based on the spirit of exclusion of undesireable ideas upon which fanaticism is based. And I am surprised folks here are not speaking out loudly against this.</quote>

We're not speaking out because we know that PZ couldn't utilize the "spirit of inquiry" while Lenny was "ignoring" him by constantly claiming that he was ignoring his "dick-waving".  

I didn't agree with PZ's initial blog in which I believe he mischaracterized Lenny's comments, and I said so on this thread.  I wasn't banned, but I also made reasoned arguments instead of mere retorts and hyperbolic accusations.

The one thing I'd add is that I'd be happier if this and other PZ threads would be open to a more reasoned Lenny, perhaps using screened posts.  In principle, I don't like someone being accused without his having recourse to defend himself, as so often seen on UD.  So while I can see why PZ banned Lenny (I once wrote that Lenny didn't do anything deserving banning, but then I looked again at his lack of substance and continual abuse), I do hope that it is not an irrevocable ban.

PZ has banned people before (at least at Pharyngula), notably DaveScot and JAD.  I think that most of us who have attempted reasonable conversation with both of those can understand why.  In this particular instance I can also understand why he decided he'd tolerated Lenny long enough, however I believe that Lenny can and may do better than those two in other threads.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Registered User on June 29 2006,06:04

We already know what Lenny would say to all this:

"shrugs"

And if he doesn't care I sure the #### am not going to.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2006,06:04

<quote>
Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 10:40 AM (e)
<quote>
Now what was the serious discussion? What did “kevin from nyc” contribute?</quote>

I’m sorry, but that is so effing stupid that it’s almost beyond my conprehension how your mind works. Are you saying that any thread of over 700 posts doesn’t contain any serious discussion because some troll is posting there? Neither PZ nor I were referring to kevin’s posts, you git. Kevin hasn’t posted here since the 25th, two days before PZ posted his comment about the discussion having taken a major upswing in seriousness. How do you bear being such an intellectually dishonest scumbag?
<quote>
In the second comment on this thread, PZ’s opening sentence is “Lenny is part of the problem”.</quote>

In response to B. Spitzer’s comment about “‘Sides, Lenny’s going to show up any minute to shrug at everybody”. Indeed, Lenny’s anti-intellectualism and bad faith tactics are part of the problem, as is your irrelevant garbage here about “kevin from nyc”.

Now go ahead, say something else incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest.
</quote>

You are obviously reading something different into the comments than I am. But go ahead, fill your boots and be as angry as you like.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,06:04

Well great, I defend PZ, and find out that he's sent my other two posts to the Bathroom Wall in the meantime.  Perhaps it's not all that important, since Registered User is obviously dishonest and ignorant, but really, why is he allowed to call names and lie, while understandable reactions are banned?

I can't reason with someone who dismisses the actual facts of the matter any more than PZ could reason with Lenny on this thread.

Sure I upped the rhetoric (nothing he doesn't deserve), but he doesn't write anything of substance, just a bunch of accusations based on his lack of knowledge about science and its history.

Then again, this will also probably end up on the Bathroom Wall, while RU's vile accusations and incompetent remarks remain.  At least this will be a record on the Bathroom Wall of a rather cavalier censorship effected by PZ.
Posted by: pzmyers on June 29 2006,06:07

I am sending everything that continues this trend, no matter who says it. If you look above, there is RU, Popper's ghost, and Glen Davidson.
Posted by: Popper's Ghost on June 29 2006,06:08

Stephen, because you seem to lack the requisite tools to work these things out yourself:

<quote>Now what was the serious discussion?</quote>

Precisely, PZ's post that you mischaracterized as a "cheap shot" was #108841, in which he wrote "the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness".  Try finding that and then looking at the posts that closely preceded it; those would constitute the "serious discussion" ... that was taking place among PZ, Mike Dunford, and others.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 29 2006,06:22

<quote>
Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 10:59 AM (e)

Stephen, because you seem to lack the requisite tools to work these things out yourself:

Now what was the serious discussion?

Precisely, PZ’s post that you mischaracterized as a “cheap shot” was #108841, in which he wrote “the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness”. Try finding that and then looking at the posts that closely preceded it; those would constitute the “serious discussion” … that was taking place among PZ, Mike Dunford, and others.
</quote>

Yes, and I admited as such in my reply to you. On my first reading though, I thought it was an atack on somebody unable to respond.

On my second reading (after reading your post), I realised that I was probably mistaken.

Now, would you like to go over the opening posts again and explain why Lenny was so out of order?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,06:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am sending everything that continues this trend, no matter who says it. If you look above, there is RU, Popper's ghost, and Glen Davidson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, well, the lying slimeball RU tells his lies and they stay on PT, while I point out the obvious and undeniable fact that he is a liar and stupid, and I get sent off.

What is more, the post in response to Clouser did not "continue this trend".  It appears that what I write is being sent here, not anything obviously objectionable, certainly no more objectionable than the post to which I was responding.  So quit pretending a fair hand here, PZ.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,06:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<quote>
Posted by Registered User on June 29, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Glen...

Oh, and<b> blogwhoring.</b></quote>

What does that mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It just means that he's too stupid to respond to the substance that I wrote, which is why he resorts to name-calling and his severely limited knowledge base to deny all learning.  

That is to say, he can't read and understand what I write in fairly long posts, so he calls me a "blogwhore".  It doesn't bother PZ, as far as anyone can discern, quite possibly because the dunce was disagreeing with me after I had disagreed with PZ.  Or do you actually have a better explanation, PZ?  I truly am open to a better explanation, but I don't see one at this time.

Glen D
Posted by: Henry J on June 29 2006,06:38

I wish the moving of a post wouldn't turn quote marks and apostrophes into weird characters.

Henry


nt

Edit:
Huh. So the non-ascii characters do work here, but the moving process loses something in the translation. I'm guessing the material gets copied to a plain-ascii type file at some point, which misinterprets expanded characters as a string of separate ascii characters. If that intermediate file were saved as "UTF-8" it might avoid this form of character assasination.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,06:50

Popper's Ghost is mischaracterizing the situation again, as if PZ's blog solely dealt with Numbers' comments, as if it didn't have anything to do with Lenny.  

The fact of the matter is that the bulk of PZ's comments were linked on Pharyngula.  And there he opened a salvo on Lenny.  I've written what I thought of it here:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-108736 >

And as indicated there, PZ indeed did start the religious flame war.  Or what would you call the statement "Albert Einstein could be such an #######" over Einstein's mention that "science without religion is lame"?  Sure, I don't find Einstein's claim to be particularly profound either, but Popper blaming Lenny for the entirety of the unhappiness is profoundly mistaken.

I didn't see the point of trying to post this over at PT any more.  My last post stuck, but I have my doubts that responding like this to Popper's mischaracterizations would last there for very long.  Maybe it would, who knows?, but if my rather innocuous response to Clouser didn't stay put, why would this one?

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,07:16

A note on Registered User: While he no doubt believes that anyone should legally be able to vote in any way that he wishes, in the de facto sense he is against free voting. A lot of his viciousness toward Lenny and myself is due to the fact that we voted Nader at one or more points in time, and not for the Democrat.

So yes, it's sort of like "freedom of religion" to many of the creos.  In the abstract sense they're all in favor of it, but they will try to prevent a free choice whenever and wherever they can. For instance, they won't vote for an "atheist", and of course they are free not to.  There is, however, no reason for us to characterize this as a de facto action against actual freedom of religion.

Likewise, the fascist RU is for "free voting," no doubt, but if you exercise your right to vote your conscience and make a truthful report of it in response to a question, his abstract belief in freedom disappears. To be sure, he can state what he likes, including his contempt for our exercising our rights, but it is only right for us to note in turn that his own actions run against freedom in the de facto sense. I do not, of course, think that there is anything wrong with someone urging others not to vote Nader, however attacks like Registered User visits on those who dare to assert our freedom are stupid, ignorant, and contrary to the spirit of true freedom.

And in fact, as someone who has never called himself a Democrat, I find those sorts of attitudes to be Democratic Party repellent. It's something Hitchens has commented on as well, that Republicans generally do not fault those who vote third party to the degree that a number of Democratic Party thugs do. I recognize that many Democrats are rather better than that, but the "vote the party line" attitude of too many is off-putting, particularly to someone like me who has never identified with the Democrats (once I slightly identified with Republicans, but I'm terribly tired of their nonsense, which Democrats don't necessarily favor, but rarely try to block with any conviction).

If one wishes for others to be liberal, one ought to be liberal oneself. Anything else is as hypocritical as the creos'/IDists' praise for science.

Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,07:21

Well there you go, I can't even quote PZ's comment about Einstein without the censor blanking out "a$$hole."  And Popper wants to make the flaming out to be all Lenny's fault.

Sort of says it all.

Glen D
Posted by: pzmyers on June 29 2006,08:31

If you want to complain about my characterization of Einstein on PT, that's fine, I'm fair game. I was only cutting out those posts where people were beginning to take rhetorical shivs to each other.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 29 2006,09:03

PZ, I wasn't in the later posts really taking aim at what you had written before, I was disagreeing with Popper's Ghost.  Lenny responded in a poor enough manner to you, however I don't think that the troubles should be portrayed--by PG--as entirely one-sided.

And truth be told, when I was complaining about what you did it was more to skewer the idiot RU than any lasting unhappiness with you.  Not that I'm saying all you did was entirely fair, but perhaps it is close enough in horseshoes and in here.


I'm going to include the response I made to PZ's latest on Pharyngula, here:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ink.php >

I still don't think that PZ quite gets how some theists use the honest that they think is their Xian duty, along with the universal and rationalistic parts of Xianity (and other religions) to combine both science and religion into a whole life.  And because this does relate to the thread here, my response follows:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not one who thinks that we should go to any trouble to accommodate religion, but I also don't think we should (ordinarily) go to any trouble to antagonize religion.

Yes, it is all the same to PZ whether he is a scientist or an atheist.  But I would maintain that for some theists there is also no difference between being theistic and being scientists, and their universal search for knowledge is based on logical/universalistic notions gained from their religion.

It has not gone unnoticed that science benefitted from the Greek/Xian belief that unities and numbers exist across the phenomena that we see in the universe.  Some scientists still believe in this in a religious way, and at that point, at least, religion and science are not different for them.

Some theistic scientists wouldn't dream of controverting the evidence from science because they do science to know something about God.  This was especially true in the past, when many scientists essentially saw science as another avenue to find out about God.  

Religious scientists will add on religious ideas to the beliefs found through evidence, but the most honest ones are not going to make the same claims about religion as about evidence-based science.

Wes Elsberry has written that one of the reasons why he opposes creationism/ID is that it is so dishonest, something contrary to his religious--and personal--sensibilities.  Is this not a happy coincidence between a kind of theism and science?  

After all, Nietzsche was willing to bite the bullet and ask why we even want "truth", as if we were adherents of Xianity.  He really was more than a little willing to point out that desires for truth, and other attributes of the scientific endeavor, are a legacy of Xian beliefs and attitudes (he seems not to have paid enough heed to the fact that we all desire "truth" in some manner or other, but the push for "truth" was emphasized in Xianity more than it has been in many religions, almost certainly to science's benefit).  This is not as true today, I would claim, however the aims and ethics of science often do coincide with those of the most honest and open religious folk.

The fact of the matter is that religion is just a collection of human thoughts and beliefs of a bewildering variety and form.  Some of those varieties share the ethics and beliefs necessary for science, while a good many do not.  Any theist whose honesty requires acceptance of the evidence and its implications should be able to do science.  

That is to say, a metaphysical basis for a scientist's work is adequate for science, and indeed a number of past scientists, and even some present ones, have had a kind of religious/metaphysical drive to discover "God's creation".

Some theists have simply accepted a metaphysical view of the world and they do science with it (others, no doubt, are religious but not wedded to metaphysics).  The "mistake" that they make is that they have never questioned their a priori beliefs, because Xianity (and presumably all other religions) cannot be justified philosophically from the ground up.  However, within their limited range of views, they are combining their morality, honesty, and desire to know, as a kind of religious/scientific endeavor to know the world/god.

I wrote more about these things here:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-109053 >

Glen D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2006,09:38



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

Well there you go, I can't even quote PZ's comment about Einstein without the censor blanking out "a$$hole."

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



IkonBoard's default configuration out of the box comes with that word in the filter. I've never had enough motivation to track it down and remove it. I doubt I will, either.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 29 2006,14:31

No more velvet gloves, eh . . . . .

I will simply repeat that I would not like to live in a world run by PZ.
Posted by: pzmyers on June 29 2006,16:22

I am now inspired to become Emperor of the World.
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2006,17:28

But...with or without clothes, pz?  People magazine wants to know!
Posted by: Zarquon on June 29 2006,21:17

Quote (pzmyers @ June 29 2006,21:22)
I am now inspired to become Emperor of the World.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well what else are you going to do with an army of genetically modified zebrafish?
Posted by: k.e on June 30 2006,04:22

Or sharks with laser beams in their (frickken) heads.

So, whom really was mini-me? Or No. 2.

Bwhhahahahahaha
Posted by: stevestory on June 30 2006,04:26

...with laser beams on their frickin' foreheads.

edit: dammit, resident beat poet KE beat me to it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 30 2006,04:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
edit: dammit, resident beat poet KE beat me to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gotta be quick, Steve.
Posted by: richCares on July 09 2006,11:28

very sad, very sad indeed, please feel sorry for Dembski. How would feel if you went through life being called a dumbshit. Is that something you would like to be remembered by.
JUST FEEL SORRY FOR HIM
Posted by: Mike Klymkowsky on July 09 2006,11:28

I completely agree, having just returned from Barnes and Noble, and discovered the increasing number of "main-stream" anti-evolution/anti-biology polemics, I am  sad both for their disingenous authors (dare I say lying) and our society as a whole.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2006,16:38

At the moment I'm watching Primetime, on ABC, about a snake oil 'healer' named Adam. This 19-yro dingbat believes, along with his clientele, that he's healing them by manipulating their auras. You should see this. He's got a hotel ballroom full of people, no doubt paying customers, hooked on his nonsense.

Goddam, I went into the wrong line of work.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2006,16:45

< http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155 >

This is the guy ABC's talking about. They're estimating he's making in the 7 figures.
Posted by: blipey on July 13 2006,16:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reviewer: N. DuQuette (Northern California) - See all my reviews
   
I really enjoyed Adam's story. He not only tells about his healings but details of how he does it. Never boring. I admire his honesty. He writes in such a way as to bridge the beliefs of the skeptic to the believer. I think anyone who reads this book will come away from it with an expanded belief system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One of the reviews of the book you linked to.  I must agree, my belief system has expanded (if only slightly), by merely reading some of the reviews.  Holy Moly!  I have new belief in how gullible people can be.
Posted by: blipey on July 13 2006,16:57

Makes you wonder if any of his "true believers" have ever seen < this. >
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2006,16:59

Holy Crap. He's actually telling the audience that his medicinal powers were conveyed to him by the gaze of a big black bird he saw on an island, which had earlier come to him in a dream.

I need to get a shiny suit and start healing people. This research engineer salary ain't cuttin it.
Posted by: blipey on July 13 2006,17:30

An island came to him in a dream?  It obviously wasn't big enough to do him any physical harm.  Too bad.  Unless, opf course, his book is a how-to detailed enough to teach me to peddle snake oil?
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2006,17:39

Are you a member of the Militant Grammarians of Massachussets? I know that the parenthetical phrase doesn't describe the word immediately preceeding the comma, but writing the sentence a different way is a little cumbersome.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2006,17:45

Quote (blipey @ July 13 2006,23:30)
Unless, opf course, his book is a how-to detailed enough to teach me to peddle snake oil?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with selling snake oil is simply that, if after accumulating enough money, you have a great big laugh by announcing the scam, and mocking your followers, which honestly I would not be able to resist, said followers are likely to meet you in parking lots and courtrooms.
Posted by: blipey on July 13 2006,18:43

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2006,22:45)
The problem with selling snake oil is simply that, if after accumulating enough money, you have a great big laugh by announcing the scam, and mocking your followers, which honestly I would not be able to resist, said followers are likely to meet you in parking lots and courtrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is, of course, why you make sure your snake oil is 110 proof.
Posted by: Henry J on July 16 2006,16:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Junk Science???

A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair on January 26.

In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical
"dihydrogen monoxide."

And for plenty of good reasons, since it can:

1. cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.

He asked 150 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

One hundred forty-three said yes

Six were undecided

Only one knew that the chemical was...

Water!

The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment.

The conclusion is obvious.

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



Wonder if this "logic" reminds anybody of anything? :)

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on July 19 2006,14:36

Arthur Caplan beats George Bush's stem cell policy like a rented mule:

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/ >
Posted by: mcc on July 19 2006,18:37

Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2006,19:36)
Arthur Caplan beats George Bush's stem cell policy like a rented mule:

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fun.

< I found this one interesting... if only because it was written by Ronald Reagan's daughter >

By the way, a couple of mostly unrelated questions:

1. Did California's independent stem cell program ever go anywhere? Or are they still spending lots of money on trying to select a building to put it in?

2. Did Paley's Ghost ever actually, in the 'abortion' thread, demonstrate that his mythical 'gill slits=abortion' pamphlet ever existed? Just cuirous.
Posted by: Ichthyic on July 19 2006,19:03

1.  there is still some legal wrangling going on.

< http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23342/ >

one wonders just how many times these idiots have to lose in court before they start getting the slightest clue.

2.  why not look for yourself?  last i checked, no.
Posted by: mcc on July 19 2006,19:20

Quote (Ichthyic @ July 20 2006,00:03)
why not look for yourself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is not so much "looking" as "just trying to understand what on earth paley is trying to say half the time".
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 20 2006,02:12

Hey,Christensen, I asked you a few questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Or, like every other fundie I've ever met, are you lethally allergic to answering direct questions?

Forget my questions already?  No problem, I'll just ask again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.

*ahem*

Show us what “scientific criticism of evolution” the standards want taught, that was NOT first presented by IDers or creation ‘scientists” decades ago…. .

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought.

But I’m a little curious —— if this REALLY isn’t about ID, then, uh, what was this “theort of intelligent design” that all the, uh, “witnesses” at the, uh, “hearings”, kept talking about? Oh, and why so many of the, uh, “witnesses” advocated a young earth, separate ancestry for man and apes, and sudden creation of life from nothing —— all of which were defining characteristics of creation ‘science’?

I’d also like to know if you agree with board member Kathy Martin, who told the press, “Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard.” That sure doesn’t sound like “scientific criticism of evolution” to ME.

Want a question and answer session, Christensen?  It begins right now.

Time to put up or shut up.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on July 20 2006,02:13

using facts is a smear tactic eh?

Assuming you mean the reference to the dishonesty of luskin, I'm sure if you give it a bit of effort, you will easily find at least 4 documented cases of luskin deliberately lying, right here on this very blog.  completely independent of KSCE.

did you need me to do it for you?  are you as handicapped at searching for posts as you are at searching for reality?

no really, go ahead, I'll wait.

or did you actually have something specific you wished to address rather than the nebulous soup you have so far spewed forth?

Did you wish to discuss something specific of Calverts?

did you actually have questions of your own?

nows your chance to ask; or are you just a pussy?

why wait until Jack's talk, when you can ask now?

heck, you could even take to task any of the points i raised.  pick one; but do go into detail as to WHY it's incorrect, and provide evidence to support your contention.  I know I can.

or, you could just continue to whine like the little baby you apparently are.

boo hoo.  I bet you were really red when your side lost at Dover, eh?

#### that "activist" judge, that was appointed by GW on the advice of all the conservatives in Florida.

*snort*
Posted by: CHRISTENSEN on July 20 2006,02:24

The anonymous "toejam" follows the standard smear tactics.

They use them all the time at Kansas Citizens for Science.

I call that a double standard.

Anonymous coward.
Posted by: Sir_Toejam on July 20 2006,02:57

<quote>3. ID is an alternative scientific theory.</quote>

er, well it is if you redefine what science itself is, like Kansas has already done.

otherwise, in reality, there is exactly as much science to ID as to astrology, as Behe himself has already pointed out.

<quote>You arguing by IMPLICATION JacK, something you just got through smearing me about over at KCFS…

Your double standard is nauseating.

Ironic that you keep mouthing off about Calvert being a LIAR>

The standards do NOT call for teaching ID.

I hope you are going to have question and answer sessions at your speeches!!!
</quote>

one, you don't understand what a double-standard is if you think you have caught Jack in one.

two, Calvert IS a liar.  it's been documented at least a dozen times.

three, the 'standards' weaken the very definition of science to the point of it being watery chowder.  Heck, like i said, why not just teach astrology, eh?

four, I'm sure Jack will have question and answer sessions, at which time I'm just as sure you won't have an intelligent question to ask, otherwise you would ask it here and now.

you are both a coward, and an idiot.

prove me wrong.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 20 2006,03:01

<quote>The standards do NOT call for teaching ID.</quote>

Riiiggghhhhttttt.

They just call for teaching all the ID arguments, presented by all the IDers.

Prove me wrong, right here in front of everyone.  Show us what "scientific criticism of evolution" the standards want taught, that was NOT first presented by IDers or creation 'scientists" decades ago. . . . .


(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that's what I thought.


But I'm a little curious ---- if this REALLY isn't about ID, then, uh, what was this "theort of intelligent design" that all the, uh, "witnesses" at the, uh, "hearings", kept talking about?  Oh, and why so many of the, uh, "witnesses" advocated a young earth, separate ancestry for man and apes, and sudden creation of life from nothing ---- all of which were defining characteristics of creation 'science'?

I'd also like to know if you agree with board member Kathy Martin, who told the press, ""Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard."  That sure doesn't sound like "scientific criticism of evolution" to ME.

I can't WAIT for this whole thing to get to court.  It'll be Dover all over again, only worse this time.  (snicker)
Posted by: Flint on July 20 2006,03:24

Ichthyic:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
one wonders just how many times these idiots have to lose in court before they start getting the slightest clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, as your link says, despite losing the bond election and losing every court case, they have already postponed any actual research by a year and a half, and the appeals process promises to double this delay. At three years per lawsuit-plus-appeals, times the number of different suits the fundies can dream up, this might be quite a while. Especially since as time goes by, more opportunities to find litigable issues are sure to arise.

So I think they have a very good clue. Justice postponed indefinitely is justice denied.
Posted by: Ichthyic on July 20 2006,12:18

no such thing as indefinetly.

delaying the inevitable is their best strategy, you say?

fine by me.
Posted by: Brett on July 24 2006,19:51

What does this have to do with the ID/evolution debate?  A little out of place here, isn't it?

I don't want to make anyone cry or anything, but in my experience whale meat is kinda yummy ice cold and in thin slices.
Posted by: mcc on July 24 2006,21:34

Quote (Ichthyic @ July 20 2006,17:18)
no such thing as indefinetly.

delaying the inevitable is their best strategy, you say?

fine by me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well

The thing is, when we're discussing research relevant to potentially life-threatening illnesses, there are many people for whom a difference of two years really is the same thing as "indefinitely"
Posted by: Jesus Freak on July 25 2006,07:58

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue.  Was I ever surprised to find that they were.  Why can we not say the same for Evolution?  What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?  Why believe in Evolution?  What does Evolution have to offer me?  Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?  What would Charles Darwin do?  What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?  Do we have any outside proof of his existence?  Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?  Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?  Thanks for your time and have a great day.  

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question.  Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?  Was he an idiot?  
Question no. 2  Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?  Was he hallucinating?  What do the experts say?
Question no. 3  Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?  What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?  Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir.  Have a good day.

Casey Powell
Posted by: steve s on July 25 2006,07:58

Hey Casey Powell, why don't you check out UncommonDescent.com. They'll probably make you a moderator.
Posted by: Corkscrew on July 25 2006,07:58

<quote author="Some Troll">What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?</quote>

Start with the belief that conclusions should be based on actual concrete evidence. And that they should be challenged if contradictory evidence emerges. And that they should be as parsimonious as possible.

You know, all that scientific stuff.
Posted by: Casey Powell on July 25 2006,07:58

I'm simply not convinced that Evolution is not a cult....it appears you are trying to invoke the "concrete evidence" from the hallucinations of Charles Darwin....or was it Adolf Hitler?  The world may never know.
Posted by: Casey Powell on July 25 2006,07:58

And besides...I have more "actual" concrete evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than you could ever imagine for the existence of Charles Darwin period.
Posted by: Jesus Freak on July 25 2006,07:58

What you don't understand is this is not a petition.  This is an assertion putting to rest the idea that Darwinism is not a religion.  Cheers my friends...good luck tackling that question "scientifically."  Ad hominems typically are not effective.  And your postmodern viewpoints are self refuting.  So I'm not impressed with your claims.
Posted by: Dr. Morgan Greenwood on July 25 2006,07:58

Hey guys, I think this Casey guy has a point.  I am an actual eye doctor and I support Intelligent Design.  As a matter of fact, I travel from conference to conference all around the world and you would be very fascinated with the increase of Intelligent Design that is growing outside of the country.  The United States is generally looked down upon because of their Evolutionary views.  According to a doctor that I met in Sweden, the Evolutionary theory has been outgrown in most parts of Europe.  This is also the case in China and Australia.  These countries typically look down upon Evolutionists, as they see most of them being Biologists unwilling to conform with actual Scientific standards that Intelligent Designers have been informed about.  As a matter of fact, Dr. Simon Smith, an Anthropologist from the Czech Republic made a general comment about this site.  Apparently, this site is not gaining very good publicity across the rest of the world.  As such, I being an eye doctor must disagree with Evolution.  There is simply no evidence from my experiences to accept Evolution, and thus I deny it being a plausible theorum.  Casey, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Inga Briskanske on July 25 2006,07:58

Right on Dr. Greenwood.  I think most Americans are very much uninterested in understanding the Intelligent Design Theorum simply because they are unwilling to conform with actual measurements of Science.  The Wells breakdown on the Evolutionary background actually does much to show why Evolution is no longer needed and simply can not be supported by viable Evidence.  We, in the Russian community, are as well not impressed with the Dover Pennsylvania case.  I have a PHD in Cellular and Molecular Biology and I agree with you and Casey both.  Intelligent Design may not be a mainstay within America as of yet, though we do see it growing amongst certain states, which is a positive sign.  Evolutionary positions have been refuted through empirically tested evidence and have been rejected even in Russia as well.  We still have a few Biologists unwilling to conform, but it is primarily the American population that supports the, as we call it in Russia, "Hypothesis" of Evolution.   Darwin's point of view was great 150 years ago, but its support has diminished to absolutely nothing in almost every part of the world with the exception of the United States.  I am all supportive of a change within the Biology community.  Peace be with you all.  

CHEERS,
Inga Briskanske
PHD
Department of Biology, GSD
Posted by: dre on July 25 2006,07:58

man, the parodies have become so lifelike i can hardly tell them from the genuine article. i'm confused. it's been fun, but i should go...
Posted by: Where is the PETA website? on July 25 2006,07:58

<quote>I’m simply pointing out a very simplistic problem with stating that Evolution is anything less than a cult. It is based around faith believe it or not! What if Charles Darwin went insane while he was at the Galapogos Islands? I have friends who went there and never saw the finches……were they really there? Were they a mirage? You will never know this. As such….you’re so called wonderful scientific “theory” is useless.</quote>

Unfortunately your solipsist silliness leaves you without any knowledge of god either. Stifle your sobbing, it will be alright.

At any rate, I can see my farsicle comments about this dolphin petition has attracted all other kinds of other silliness too.  For that I apologize.  

All I really wantted to ask was what does a dolphin petition have to do with evolution or ID nonsense?  There are pleanty of sites to save animals and people and trees, and the climate....I just had hoped this wouldn't be one of them.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on July 25 2006,07:58

Casey Powell said: "And your postmodern viewpoints are self refuting."

Sounds like someone's been listening to Nancy Pearcey a little too much. If you mean that if intelligence and the capacity to hold ideas evolved, then who's to say that anything you think could possibly be true, rather than just the result of selection..?

Think long and hard about this: What possible advantage could it give an animal to believe that an orange is tasty and nutritious, and that a cliff is dangerous?

Wait... because it is in an animal's BEST INTEREST TO HAVE ITS IDEAS REFLECT REALITY because they interact with reality oni a daily basis. Science is a way of checking your ideas against reality, something you should do more often.

What's your fantastic evidence for jesus's resurrection over darwin's existence? We have documents upon documents written by him, log books with his name in them, paintings, possessions... and none of the same about your religious icon. To answer your question, the experts say you're an idiot.
Posted by: Darwinian Faith! on July 25 2006,07:59

I'm simply pointing out a very simplistic problem with stating that Evolution is anything less than a cult.  It is based around faith believe it or not!  What if Charles Darwin went insane while he was at the Galapogos Islands?  I have friends who went there and never saw the finches......were they really there?  Were they a mirage?  You will never know this.  As such....you're so called wonderful scientific "theory" is useless.
Posted by: Honest Question on July 25 2006,09:12

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue.  Was I ever surprised to find that they were.  Why can we not say the same for Evolution?  What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?  Why believe in Evolution?  What does Evolution have to offer me?  Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?  What would Charles Darwin do?  What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?  Do we have any outside proof of his existence?  Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?  Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?  Thanks for your time and have a great day.  

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question.  Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?  Was he an idiot?  
Question no. 2  Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?  Was he hallucinating?  What do the experts say?
Question no. 3  Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?  What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?  Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir.  Have a good day.
Posted by: A few more honest questions on July 25 2006,09:12

Why are we trying to save the whales?  Who's trying to kill them?  Did Charles Darwin have any Disciples?  How about any outside references outside his book?  Thanks for your responses.
Posted by: heddle on July 25 2006,09:16

Buddha, congratulations.  You win PT's coveted "I can descend into irrelevancy faster than a New York taxi driver blows his horn at a changing traffic light" award. In a rare PT post that actually deals with science rather than politics, on just the second comment posted, you initiated the degradation. Nicely done! Although there is some room for improvement.
Posted by: John West on July 25 2006,09:16

This is a message concerning the Kansas State Board of Educators.....I must first inform all of you of the misconception of the statement that I had made in previous statements.  I consider what I say a blasphemy to the Scientific community.  As such, I issue a formal apology to the opponents of Evolution.  I will further make the claim that I back the Kansas decision to include Intelligent Design into the Scientific Curriculum of our schooling systems.  Based on the growth of Intelligent Design outside of the United States, I think its publicity needs to be seen for what it truly entails.  Biologists alike generally assume the position of those against Intelligent Design.  However, while the Dover case did not go the way as would perceivably be intended, it certainly is no reflection on the Kansas School Board's decision and I'm sure in the future many other school systems across the United States.  Again, this is a public apology regarding the issue.

Mr. John West
KBSOE
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:16

Heddle to the metal banged on about:<i>B... on just the second comment posted, (must have been WWJD)</i>

or the eighteenth comment...eh?

....is that 9 times more irrelevant?

Just how many light years is the old "Son of Mary" beyond Titan now Heddle, presuming of course WWJD could not travel faster than light...you're the physicist.

And here's my take on WWJD ...if he wanted to explore Titan....collect taxes in the US and send a rocket.
Posted by: Your worst nightmare on July 25 2006,09:16

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue.  Was I ever surprised to find that they were.  Why can we not say the same for Evolution?  What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?  Why believe in Evolution?  What does Evolution have to offer me?  Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?  What would Charles Darwin do?  What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?  Do we have any outside proof of his existence?  Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?  Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?  Thanks for your time and have a great day.  

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question.  Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?  Was he an idiot?  
Question no. 2  Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?  Was he hallucinating?  What do the experts say?
Question no. 3  Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?  What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?  Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir.  Have a good day.

Casey Powell
Posted by: The real demise of Evolution on July 25 2006,09:16

The more and more I see on this site, the more and more I see a resemblance of the mapmakers argument that the world was flat some 500 years ago.  Evolution's doom is indeed imminent....

I want to show you one of the Evolutionistic arguments that has become popularized and fooled many on the web (including a gentleman with a PHD in Cellular Biology named John Timmer who I just recently won a debate against online).  This is basically the claim.  What we see here is a gentleman by the name of Glenn Morton.  His background is very speculative, one of uniformitarian turned Evolutionist, though for the most part, Dr. Morton is revered among the Darwinistic community as a Christian turned Evolutionist:  

 The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
< http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm >

Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is  that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it)  is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:  
"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that  in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes."  Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
“Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions.” Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
"There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
   "Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1894
"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206

1895
"In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have  been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415
1903

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset.  A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
   "Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said.  It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way.  It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad.  Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution,  1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1904
   "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1905  
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
" It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
   "When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright.  Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1922
"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a  report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." < http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156 >
1924
"…I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126   Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1929
"The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1935
"The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114

( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.
1940
"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this  foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32

1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,

1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.

1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
“As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19

“The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21  
"Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution.  There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath.  Well it is now 2.5 years.  I don't hear the wheezing:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
"Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner." < http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php > accessed 1-26-05
2003
“In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56
“However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
‘There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.’
    “In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
    “What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these  are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. “Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p.  96
    “As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwin’s theory.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168
“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004
    “History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn't be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp >
From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.
"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp >
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky < http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm >
2006
Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
   By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
   The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
   "I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said."
< http://www.mercurynews.com/mld....y_state >
accessed 4-2-06


Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document.
Back to DMD Publishing Home Page

Okay, this is quite a cocky response.  Obviously too cocky to be objectively accurate.  Let me show you what I have done to this argument.  Having knowledge that Creationism began in the 1960s, this is what can be stated:  First of all, Spontaneous Generation was disproven 100 years ago, so these quotes have been around for a while yes.  The issue at hand is Evolution vs. Creationism.    

To his Glenn Morton source, I stated:    
1925 - Jim Jones stated in his article, "The beast and the creature" "Evolution is sure to reign for the next 20 years.  Regardless of what Creationists say, they are always wrong."

1934 - Uncle Jim Bob Blue from Timbuktu writes in his book, Evolution Screams "Evolution will be believed by anybody.  The advances in Science are sure to point towards Evolution, with absolutely no evidence against it or revoking it whatsoever."

1954 - Miguel Cabrera writes in his book Nacho Rancho , "I have no idea what I'm talking about, (I can't even speak English) but Creationism is not Science."

1967 - Alice states in her book Alice in Wonderland, "Creationists have no explanation for the rabbit evolution.  The court systems are in our favor, and I'm sure Snow White and the 7 dwarfs could agree."

1976 - Donald Duck states, "When it comes to Evolution, John Timmer is a quack."

1990 - Whyclamigo QUAOKC! states, "Evolution is my best friend.  Charles Darwin was sooooo smart!"

1995 - the Unabomber proudly proclaims, "Evolution is a blast."

My point is, who cares?  Without any significant evidence of what he has to say, he has no point.

I am not impressed with a skeptic.  Glenn Morton's argument is quite deceiving.  When we take his skeptical voice out of the writing, I notice a general inclination towards where we are now.  If the debate was not real, Creationism would not have a site and it would not be all over the internet like it is.  Propaganda like this comes from an extremely cynical and skeptical source and should be excluded.  Show me the facts, or I'll show you the door sir.

To illustrate how opinionated the source was, I simply re-represented the evidence from a different angle:  Lets take out Morton's opinion!  

Over the years, we have seen an evolutionary curve of Creationists and Intelligent Designers coming onto the scene!  The circus act that many Evolutionists charge Creationists with putting on a spectacle seems to be becoming a true threat to the theory of Evolution.  Mr. Morton provides a great summary of how strong Creationism has become within the Scientific community over the past half century.
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evid
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:16

Casey....who?

Charles ain't here man.
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:16

ooooooh argumentum ad infinitum in ONE post.
...Snicker

Is that a new record?
Posted by: The Demise pt. 2 on July 25 2006,09:16

“History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp >

"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp >
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky < http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm >

Over the past 5 years, the quotes are becoming more and more prevalent among the Scientific community.  Based on the trends, it appears that Creationism really is starting to rule the Scientific community.  A special thanks to Dr. Glenn Morton for his hard work in researching the material.
It appears that most Scientists are actually Creationists or Intelligent Designers after all.  What ever happened to Glenn Morton?  Where is he in the midst?  Did he miss something here?  And what happened to that Jonathan Wells quote?????  Didn't see it.  Sorry.  Instead of addressing the issue of Intelligent Design, they try to laugh it away, or simply claim its not a problem.  From my personal experience of being a college graduate, I can personally state that most of the teachers I know did not teach what they wanted to in the classes of which I participated (many even wanted to teach Intelligent Design).  That should tell you a little bit about where the community really is.  Evolutionists have resorted to brainwashing tactics.

Why is this conjecture still around?  The media!  What else?
I hope this helps your site sir.  God bless.

Come on guys, you need to work on your argumentative skills.  Take a philosophy class.
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:16

Come on Casey, you need to work on your cut and paste skills. Take an  <url href="http://www.tammyyee.com/origami.html">origami</url>.class ...you could do pop up books with Noah's Ark complete with dinosaurs...giggle.
Posted by: gwangung on July 25 2006,09:17

<i> Over the past 5 years, the quotes are becoming more and more prevalent among the Scientific community.  </i>

No, they aren't.

Now stop trolling.
Posted by: Darwinianism is Deadism! on July 25 2006,09:17

Was Charles ever here?  Did it come from Hitler?  The world may never know.  Lets try getting our heads out of our asses for one minute here.  Who are you really following?  As I understand, the "grand glorious story" of Charles Darwin involved a man with poor mental health writing about some stupid island population in the 19th century.  And with the Glenn Morton case, notice that the quotes are becoming more and more frequent!  He self destructs his own argument.  Thats the point here, not that one person said it in 1820.  Get with the 21st century here guys.  The world is no longer flat.  As such neither is Darwinism credible.  It has simply become a cult in denial.  Not impressed.
Posted by: Evidence...WHERE? on July 25 2006,09:17

I need eyewitness accounts other than Darwin that saw him there at the Galapogos Islands.  Otherwise, nothign to believe.
Posted by: buddha on July 25 2006,09:17

<quote author = "heddle">You win PT’s coveted “I can descend into irrelevancy faster than a New York taxi driver blows his horn at a changing traffic light” award.</quote>

Thanks, but I learned by example, heddle.
Posted by: My evidence on July 25 2006,09:17

And thats what I thought.  I will leave you to your cult now.  Don't forget Josephus..."Josephus, a secular historian and one of the most popular historians of his day was a strong conservative Jew, was writing to a hostile Jewish audience and stated in his Antiquities book in 60 A.D., “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”   I decided to figure out why so much speculation and skepticism has been provided against this quotation.  Well ultimately the conclusion was come to when I visited the public library.  The book, Antiquities, was in the nonfictional section at the library.  Upon investigation of the book, I certainly found the quote and the reason as to why to not believe the Christian skeptics on this subject.  This quotation has been circled by controversy from Christian skeptics, however, ultimately, the justifiable conclusion as to whether or not this was actually what Josephus actually stated was made by, oddly enough, another Jewish Historian himself who stated that this was DEFINITELY in the original Josephan text.  Eusebius who lived in A.D. 324 stated that this was the exact wording used by Josephus as well.  The evidence used contrarily against this statement was written by the Melkite historian Agapius 1000 years after the life of Josephus, plenty of time for manipulation, and once again, mythological elements being inserted into the text.  The Agapian source is not much different in regards to what Josephus stated.  Both state that Christ did exist and that he rose from the dead.  One states that he was perhaps the Messiah and the other states that he definitely was the Messiah.  As to why some scholars debate that the Antiquities were manipulated by a Christian hand could this not imply that Josephus became a Christian himself?  We have no evidence as to what this statement means exactly.  But we can defiantly conclude that this exact passage that evidence shows that the passage I included was what Josephus stated.  It is the word for word quotation taken from the standard version of the Antiquities book. Other outside evidence of Christ is from Ignatius who was a martyr who died for his belief in Christ. He is quoted as saying in 50 A.D. “...nearness to the sword is nearness to God; to be among the wild beasts is to be in the arms of God; only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ. I endure all things that I may suffer together with him, since he who became perfect man strengthens me...We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians."
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:17

Beautiful

<i>I need eyewitness accounts other than Darwin that saw him there at the Galapogos Islands. Otherwise, nothign to believe</i>

Casey just for you. (BTW Darwin is buried in England's most prestigious Church...Westminster Cathedral..something not even you could hope to do).

<b>Top 10 Signs You Are A Fundamentalist</b>
<i>
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite #### of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian</i>
Posted by: shaking head on July 25 2006,09:17

You completely avoid my question.  I did not say where his body was.  We have thousands of bodies of religious leaders (by the way, Jesus's has never been found).  And your ad hominem attack will just ignored.  I want to know, who say him at the Galapogos Islands?
Posted by: steve s on July 25 2006,09:17

hey "evidence where" "the demise pt 2" etc, you should check out < http://helives.blogspot.com/ > . It's a site featuring the same kind of brilliance you've demonstrated here. Same kind of penetrating insight.
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:17

ad hominem attack ? Bwhhhahahahah

Oh well, beats attacking a dead man.

And on WWJD body not being found, heck that's careless isn't it? losing a body! Did somone sue?
Posted by: GuyeFaux on July 25 2006,09:17

<quote> losing a body! Did somone sue?</quote>
Funny, but maybe a dash inappropriate.

Whether Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos is completely irrelevant to science. It's only of historical interest.

You know, that's the eaxct opposite of fundamentalism, where everything hinges on the eye-witness testimonies of a ~2000 year old historical event.
Posted by: Losers on July 25 2006,09:17

You're absolutely right.  This means that Charles Darwin's views are completely irrelevant to Science, right?  We have no idea whether or not the finches exist or not.  We have no idea whether or not that is technically Charles Darwin's body. It could all be a complete legend.  Whether Darwin exists or if he went to Galapogos is extremely significant.  That is the story you put your faith in and your supposed "foundation of Science".  Ciao!
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:17

<i>but maybe a dash inappropriate.</i>

I don't think so, I think we should call forensics, CSI should be available.

Body snatching is a serious crime and if it's not stamped out now where will we end up?

Just imagine, Elvis may not be in his tomb, Lenin may be a stuffed fake JP2 could be in a hip near you.
Posted by: The real demise of Evolution on July 25 2006,09:17

The more and more I see on this site, the more and more I see a resemblance of the mapmakers argument that the world was flat some 500 years ago.  Evolution's doom is indeed imminent....

I want to show you one of the Evolutionistic arguments that has become popularized and fooled many on the web (including a gentleman with a PHD in Cellular Biology named John Timmer who I just recently won a debate against online).  This is basically the claim.  What we see here is a gentleman by the name of Glenn Morton.  His background is very speculative, one of uniformitarian turned Evolutionist, though for the most part, Dr. Morton is revered among the Darwinistic community as a Christian turned Evolutionist:  

 The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
< http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm >

Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is  that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it)  is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:  
"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that  in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes."  Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
“Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions.” Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
"There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
   "Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1894
"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206

1895
"In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have  been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415
1903

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset.  A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
   "Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said.  It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way.  It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad.  Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution,  1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1904
   "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1905  
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
" It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
   "When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright.  Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1922
"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a  report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." < http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156 >
1924
"…I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126   Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1929
"The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1935
"The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114

( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.
1940
"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this  foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32

1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,

1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.

1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
“As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19

“The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21  
"Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution.  There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath.  Well it is now 2.5 years.  I don't hear the wheezing:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
"Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner." < http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php > accessed 1-26-05
2003
“In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56
“However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
‘There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.’
    “In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
    “What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these  are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. “Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p.  96
    “As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwin’s theory.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168
“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004
    “History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn't be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp >
From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.
"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp >
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky < http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm >
2006
Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
   By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
   The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
   "I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said."
< http://www.mercurynews.com/mld....y_state >
accessed 4-2-06


Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document.
Back to DMD Publishing Home Page

Okay, this is quite a cocky response.  Obviously too cocky to be objectively accurate.  Let me show you what I have done to this argument.  Having knowledge that Creationism began in the 1960s, this is what can be stated:  First of all, Spontaneous Generation was disproven 100 years ago, so these quotes have been around for a while yes.  The issue at hand is Evolution vs. Creationism.    

To his Glenn Morton source, I stated:    
1925 - Jim Jones stated in his article, "The beast and the creature" "Evolution is sure to reign for the next 20 years.  Regardless of what Creationists say, they are always wrong."

1934 - Uncle Jim Bob Blue from Timbuktu writes in his book, Evolution Screams "Evolution will be believed by anybody.  The advances in Science are sure to point towards Evolution, with absolutely no evidence against it or revoking it whatsoever."

1954 - Miguel Cabrera writes in his book Nacho Rancho , "I have no idea what I'm talking about, (I can't even speak English) but Creationism is not Science."

1967 - Alice states in her book Alice in Wonderland, "Creationists have no explanation for the rabbit evolution.  The court systems are in our favor, and I'm sure Snow White and the 7 dwarfs could agree."

1976 - Donald Duck states, "When it comes to Evolution, John Timmer is a quack."

1990 - Whyclamigo QUAOKC! states, "Evolution is my best friend.  Charles Darwin was sooooo smart!"

1995 - the Unabomber proudly proclaims, "Evolution is a blast."

My point is, who cares?  Without any significant evidence of what he has to say, he has no point.

I am not impressed with a skeptic.  Glenn Morton's argument is quite deceiving.  When we take his skeptical voice out of the writing, I notice a general inclination towards where we are now.  If the debate was not real, Creationism would not have a site and it would not be all over the internet like it is.  Propaganda like this comes from an extremely cynical and skeptical source and should be excluded.  Show me the facts, or I'll show you the door sir.

To illustrate how opinionated the source was, I simply re-represented the evidence from a different angle:  Lets take out Morton's opinion!  

Over the years, we have seen an evolutionary curve of Creationists and Intelligent Designers coming onto the scene!  The circus act that many Evolutionists charge Creationists with putting on a spectacle seems to be becoming a true threat to the theory of Evolution.  Mr. Morton provides a great summary of how strong Creationism has become within the Scientific community over the past half century.
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evid
Posted by: Resurrecition on July 25 2006,09:17

And oddly enough, no need to sue.  There were 500 people who saw his body three days later!  (wow, amazing right?)
Posted by: interestnig on July 25 2006,09:17

And even more amazing, he wasn't dead!
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:17

There were 500 people who saw his body three days later


Oh yeah ...give me their names and addresses
Posted by: Raging Bee on July 25 2006,09:17

<i>Was Charles ever here? Did it come from Hitler? The world may never know.</i>

And therein lies the...um...mystery...right...
Posted by: K.E. on July 25 2006,09:18

<i>And even more amazing, he wasn’t dead!</i>


....right and walking around with broken feet...anything else impossible you believe while we are at it ?
Posted by: Raging Bee on July 25 2006,09:18

<i>I want to know, who say him at the Galapogos Islands?</i>

I want to know, who say this guy how to write?
Posted by: Not just another Fundy on July 25 2006,09:18

For future reference, make sure you know who you're arguing with.  I'm a writer who has studied all sides of about 50 different religions, and Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.  I side with ID for several reasons, based off of interviews I have had with eye Doctors.  I have also interviewed PHDs in Biology and Anthropology.  I know where the evidence leads.  I am also well versed in philosophy, logic and truth tables.  I am pointing out the most obvious flaw never reviewed by any man in the history of mankind regarding Evolution.  That is the metaphysics of the origins.  Nobody has researched this.  I have never received a decent answer from any PHD in Biology or any other Scientist.  Good luck finding one.
Posted by: gwangung on July 25 2006,09:18

<i> For future reference, make sure you know who you’re arguing with.  </i>

From the evidence, you're an idiot with delusions of grandeur.

<i> yawn </i>

Next.
Posted by: FYI on July 25 2006,09:18

To the ignorant:  There is an actual field of Psychology that is well studied in the realm of supernaturalism.
Posted by: shaking head again on July 25 2006,09:18

From your evidence, it appears you are unable to have an intelligently logical argument.  You have committed more logical fallacies than I can count.  Take a philosophy course, then come back and talk to me.
Posted by: The real demise of Evolution on July 25 2006,09:18

[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

The more and more I see on this site, the more and more I see a resemblance of the mapmakers argument that the world was flat some 500 years ago.  Evolution's doom is indeed imminent....

I want to show you one of the Evolutionistic arguments that has become popularized and fooled many on the web (including a gentleman with a PHD in Cellular Biology named John Timmer who I just recently won a debate against online).  This is basically the claim.  What we see here is a gentleman by the name of Glenn Morton.  His background is very speculative, one of uniformitarian turned Evolutionist, though for the most part, Dr. Morton is revered among the Darwinistic community as a Christian turned Evolutionist:  

 The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
< http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm >

Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is  that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it)  is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:  
"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that  in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes."  Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
“Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions.” Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
"There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
   "Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1894
"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206

1895
"In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have  been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415
1903

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset.  A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
   "Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said.  It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way.  It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad.  Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution,  1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1904
   "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1905  
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
" It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
   "When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright.  Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1922
"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a  report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." < http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156 >
1924
"…I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126   Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1929
"The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html >  
1935
"The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114

( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.
1940
"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this  foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32

1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,

1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.

1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
“As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19

“The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21  
"Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution.  There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath.  Well it is now 2.5 years.  I don't hear the wheezing:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
"Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner." < http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php > accessed 1-26-05
2003
“In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56
“However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
‘There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.’
    “In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
    “What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these  are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. “Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p.  96
    “As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwin’s theory.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168
“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004
    “History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn't be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp >
From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.
"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, < http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp >
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky < http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm >
2006
Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
   By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
   The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
   "I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said."
< http://www.mercurynews.com/mld....y_state >
accessed 4-2-06


Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document.
Back to DMD Publishing Home Page

Okay, this is quite a cocky response.  Obviously too cocky to be objectively accurate.  Let me show you what I have done to this argument.  Having knowledge that Creationism began in the 1960s, this is what can be stated:  First of all, Spontaneous Generation was disproven 100 years ago, so these quotes have been around for a while yes.  The issue at hand is Evolution vs. Creationism.    

To his Glenn Morton source, I stated:    
1925 - Jim Jones stated in his article, "The beast and the creature" "Evolution is sure to reign for the next 20 years.  Regardless of what Creationists say, they are always wrong."

1934 - Uncle Jim Bob Blue from Timbuktu writes in his book, Evolution Screams "Evolution will be believed by anybody.  The advances in Science are sure to point towards Evolution, with absolutely no evidence against it or revoking it whatsoever."

1954 - Miguel Cabrera writes in his book Nacho Rancho , "I have no idea what I'm talking about, (I can't even speak English) but Creationism is not Science."

1967 - Alice states in her book Alice in Wonderland, "Creationists have no explanation for the rabbit evolution.  The court systems are in our favor, and I'm sure Snow White and the 7 dwarfs could agree."

1976 - Donald Duck states, "When it comes to Evolution, John Timmer is a quack."

1990 - Whyclamigo QUAOKC! states, "Evolution is my best friend.  Charles Darwin was sooooo smart!"

1995 - the Unabomber proudly proclaims, "Evolution is a blast."

My point is, who cares?  Without any significant evidence of what he has to say, he has no point.

I am not impressed with a skeptic.  Glenn Morton's argument is quite deceiving.  When we take his skeptical voice out of the writing, I notice a general inclination towards where we are now.  If the debate was not real, Creationism would not have a site and it would not be all over the internet like it is.  Propaganda like this comes from an extremely cynical and skeptical source and should be excluded.  Show me the facts, or I'll show you the door sir.

To illustrate how opinionated the source was, I simply re-represented the evidence from a different angle:  Lets take out Morton's opinion!  

Over the years, we have seen an evolutionary curve of Creationists and Intelligent Designers coming onto the scene!  The circus act that many Evolutionists charge Creationists with putting on a spectacle seems to be becoming a true threat to the theory of Evolution.  Mr. Morton provides a great summary of how strong Creationism has become within the Scientific community over the past half century.
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm >
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" < http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg >

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. < http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html >
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm >
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they
Posted by: Glen Davidson on July 25 2006,09:19

<quote>For future reference, make sure you know who you’re arguing with. I’m a writer who has studied all sides of about 50 different religions, and Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.</quote>

Right.  That's why you raise canardsm, instead of discussing evidence.

<quote>I side with ID for several reasons, based off of interviews I have had with eye Doctors.</quote>

Sure beats understanding the relevant science, fer sher.

<quote>I have also interviewed PHDs in Biology and Anthropology. I know where the evidence leads.</quote>

So again, no evidence at all.

<quote>I am also well versed in philosophy, logic and truth tables.</quote>

No doubt explaining the fallacious line of "argumentation" that you use.

<quote>I am pointing out the most obvious flaw never reviewed by any man in the history of mankind regarding Evolution. That is the metaphysics of the origins. Nobody has researched this.</quote>

No, ignoramus, we only follow evidence, we don't study metaphysics.  That you're a complete and ignorant flake shows in your concern for the magic of metaphysics.

<quote>I have never received a decent answer from any PHD in Biology or any other Scientist. Good luck finding one.</quote>

Why don't you learn to ask intelligent questions?  We're not even interested in your metaphysical BS.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: In conclusion on July 25 2006,09:19

If by intelligent questions, you mean those that don't question the credibility of Evolution, then no....not interested.  I will consider your words what we like to call in logic Argumentum Ad Ignorantum.  The difference between you and I is that I didn't use an a priori investigation.  You have.  Enjoy your cult.
Posted by: Yah for illogical on July 25 2006,09:19

The metaphysical antithesis from the postmodernistic point of view is in fact a type of metaphysical thesis within itself.  That which is self refuting however.
Posted by: logic on July 25 2006,09:19

The metaphysical antithesis from the postmodernistic point of view is in fact a type of metaphysical thesis within itself.  That which is self refuting however.
Posted by: logic on July 25 2006,09:19

[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

The metaphysical antithesis from the postmodernistic point of view is in fact a type of metaphysical thesis within itself.  That which is self refuting however.
Posted by: Raging Bee on July 25 2006,09:27

That's "Jovians," Coin, <i>JOVIANS!!</i>  Don't anger them further with incorrect names or we will all be <b>DOOMED!!!!</b>

<i>I am pointing out the most obvious flaw never reviewed by any man in the history of mankind regarding Evolution.</i>

Oh great, another guy finding something perfectly obvious that no one anywhere has ever found before even though it's been sitting out in the open all this time.  People like that are SOO tiresome.  Oh well, at least he picked it up before someone tripped over it and hurt himself...

<i>That is the metaphysics of the origins. Nobody has researched this.</i>

Why "research" metaphysics when you can make up your own?  I'll bet no one has done any metaphysical experiments either.

<i>I have never received a decent answer from any PHD in Biology or any other Scientist. Good luck finding one.</i>

What, exactly, distinguishes a "decent" answer?  And why are you asking scientists about metaphysics anyway?  Why not shopkeepers in Glastonbury?

<i>I side with ID for several reasons, based off of interviews I have had with eye Doctors.</i>

Have you interviewed any carpenters or pharmacists?  They might be able to give you an equally relevant perspective on the subject.
Posted by: Christensen on July 29 2006,10:24

Why don't you have Jack include an addendum about how he followed Calvert over to his meeting in Olathe the following Wednesday night with his side kicks and asked incoherent questions?
He even tried the coin toss experiment on Harris and flopped.
And then at each Q and A one of his buddies jumped up and tried to ask "Gotcah" questions...didn't work and Harris, Menuge and Calvert all had calm well reasoned replies. (One of his buddies popped up like a Jack in the Box at every opportunity...quite hilarious actually.
The audio files on those would be quite interesting.
Posted by: Jeremy Mohn on July 29 2006,10:24

Recordings?  Don't you remember, Christensen?  They were recording the whole thing for an upcoming documentary.

Of course, that means you and your new acquaintance "Ulyanov" should appear prominently on the video tape since you were sitting right up front.

Aren't you excited?
Posted by: Christensen on July 29 2006,10:24

Why don't you quite trying to smear me, Mr. Mohn and just get the audios posted? I am sure Calvert will oblige.

And I think it is amusing as all get out to see you acting as Jacks front man.

After all, you were there jumping up and down every chance you got.

And if you have a problem with the kid Uylanov, take it up him.
Posted by: Jeremy Mohn on July 29 2006,10:24

There were three speakers at the event and I asked them each a question.  I don't see that as "jumping up and down."  I know my questions were oppositional, but they did address the substance of the presentations.  I appreciated their willingness to answer.

For what it is worth, I had only met Jack in person once before Wednesday.  I certainly didn't know he was going to be there.  When I saw Jack arrive, I decided to go over and chat with him.

I guess the same type of thinking that can turn a personal discussion forum post into an "accidentally published memo" might also be used to turn an acquaintance into a "front man."

Obviously, we disagree about many issues, but I have never intentionally disrepected you.  Jack showed an extreme amount of patience with you on the KCFS forums.  You had your chance to behave, and you chose not to.

This will be the last time I will ever try to engage you in a conversation.  I respectfully ask that you leave me alone as well.
Posted by: Christensen on July 29 2006,10:24

It will be a pleasure not to have to talk to you Mr. Mohn, especially in view of the many times I was allowed to be ridiculed on the forums you mention. where I fail to notice that I was ever treated with much respect.
As for your disrespect of me, it was and is obvious.
And what do you mean "leave you alone"?  What does that imply? I have never done any thing to bother you except to respond on internet forums.
And if you continue to engage issues that concern me and my friends, I will continue to exercise my right to respond to those issues.
But if you want to run away, that is your right.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:09

<quote>Ahem. The Earth is closer to the sun during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and further during summer — the opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. IOW, the variance of the distance from the sun is not significant, even for us.

P.S. Here more than you ever wanted to know about the Earth’s orbit and its relation to the seasons.

   the Earth’s orbit is almost circular - the distance to the Sun at perihelion is only about 3% less than its distance at aphelion.

This might have something to do with why it wasn’t obvious that Ptolemy was wrong.</quote>

I was talking to David Williams, who obviously didn't know the first thing about science or any scientific facts. Such a tactic of discrediting the "just the right distance from the sun" was intended to make him realise he really should learn how to search for info. And it still doesn't negate the fact that the "right distance" is passing by Earth

Next time, before you try to show off how smart you think you are, maybe pay attention to the tactical side of discussion. Scientific discussion with the ignorant requires facts as well as tactics, not facts and attacking people like how dogs are attracted to shit.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:11

<quote>Next time, before you try to show off how smart you think you are, maybe pay attention to the tactical side of discussion.</quote>

Nice try at evading the simple fact that you were mistaken about the significance of the fact that the Earth's orbit is an oval, a fact that actually has nothing to do with Thomas's bass-ackwards reasoning about the Earth being "distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze".
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:13

<quote>Did you not understand?</quote>

I understand that you're full of crap, and so does everyone else reading your nonsense.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:14

<quote>Such a tactic of discrediting the “just the right distance from the sun” </quote>

I really don't believe that even you are so stupid as to think that your "tactic" discredited anything, even if Mr. Thomas ever came back to this site, which is quite unlikely.  The Earth's orbit is <i>very close to a circle</i>, so close that its deviation from it doesn't even affect the seasons.  You wrote <i>That means the distance from the sun varies by large distances (small astronomically, but large compared to us)</i> is <b>wrong</b>; it does not vary by <i>significant</i> distances.  Thus, the variance in the orbit is so small that the Earth <i>does</i> maintain "just the right distance from the sun" to sustain life and not "burn up or freeze".  Pointing that the orbit is an oval in this context is simply ignorant, and your blather about "tactics" is plain stupid; Mr. Thomas probably doesn't even know what an oval is.  I didn't point out the error to show off my intelligence, but simply to point out the mistake, and I provided a link giving in details -- that link doesn't reflect my intelligence or lack of it, but rather the accumulated knowledge of the human race.  But you are such an insecure twit that you couldn't just say "right; thanks", but rather demonstrated what an utter jackass you are.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:15

<quote>Why are P’s G and AnonCow sniping at each other? Are we still in grade school?</quote>

Someone seems to be.  My post was

<quote>Ahem. The Earth is closer to the sun during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and further during summer — the opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. IOW, the variance of the distance from the sun is not significant, even for us.</quote>

Anon's response was

<quote>I was talking to David Williams, who obviously didn’t know the first thing about science or any scientific facts. Such a tactic of discrediting the “just the right distance from the sun” was intended to make him realise he really should learn how to search for info. And it still doesn’t negate the fact that the “right distance” is passing by Earth

Next time, before you try to show off how smart you think you are, maybe pay attention to the tactical side of discussion. Scientific discussion with the ignorant requires facts as well as tactics, not facts and attacking people like how dogs are attracted to shit.</quote>

Showing off how smart I think I am?  <i>Attacking</i> people?  Good grief.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:15

<quote>I understand that you’re full of crap, and so does everyone else reading your nonsense.</quote>

Yet ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim. Just like an IDiot and Creationists in general.

<quote>You wrote That means the distance from the sun varies by large distances (small astronomically, but large compared to us) is wrong; it does not vary by significant distances.</quote>

Strangely, you say "I'm full of crap".

Must be some strange meaning you use for "compared to us". Divide the change in distance by the average height of a human. It's still a big number. That's all I meant by that. But, in a hurry to be angry, you make up things to argue about.

<quote>Thus, the variance in the orbit is so small that the Earth does maintain “just the right distance from the sun” to sustain life and not “burn up or freeze”.</quote>

If I were you, I would nitpick the word "maintain". Pray tell, how does the Earth "maintain" its orbit?

That's not the point.

My point is, as has been discussed by people who have shot down David William's claim, that the "right distance from the sun" is only coincidental. The "right distance from the sun" is not the same 4 billions years ago. And it won't be the same in a few billion years time due to the lifetime of stars.

"Right distance" my ass. As pointed out by others, extremophiles shoots that conjecture down.

<quote>Pointing that the orbit is an oval in this context is simply ignorant, and your blather about “tactics” is plain stupid; Mr. Thomas probably doesn’t even know what an oval is.</quote>

When the fox could not reach the grapes, it sulked and declared the grapes to be sour and not worth the effort.

When your own ignorance of discussion tactics is revealed, you sulk and declare it "blather" to hide the fact that you were caught out by a tactic that was designed to catch the "stupid" end of humanity not meant for you.

<quote>I didn’t point out the error to show off my intelligence, but simply to point out the mistake, and I provided a link giving in details — that link doesn’t reflect my intelligence or lack of it, but rather the accumulated knowledge of the human race. But you are such an insecure twit that you couldn’t just say “right; thanks”, but rather demonstrated what an utter jackass you are.</quote>

Ask around. Many other people think you're a jackass too.

Judging by all the other "discussions" you have, which seems to always involve attempts to insult other people.

You accuse me of insecurity. So what?

Let me ask why you have to be so angry all the time? It seems to stem from the insecurity that no one will pay attention to you otherwise.

Why don't you stop being angry all the #### time and maybe you'll get the thanks you have declared you deserved. I'm still offering to help you through your #### anger problems. Just say the word.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:28

Whatever, you pathetic hypocritical jackass.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:28

<quote>Showing off how smart I think I am? Attacking people? Good grief.</quote>

Get up to speed.

I had the unfortunate luck to have to read your many other angry posts on the other threads. My comment about "attacking people" is a passing comment on your general behaviour on this blogthing.

<quote><quote>Why are P’s G and AnonCow sniping at each other? Are we still in grade school?</quote>Someone seems to be.</quote>

(Yes I'm aware I cut out the rest, but I'm not quoting all of that)

See? Can't make your point without going after someone (ad hominemly) like a lawyer to an ambulance.

For once, try not to get angry. You'll feel so much better.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:28

Whatever, you pathetic hypocritical jackass.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:28

<quote>Whatever, you pathetic hypocritical jackass.</quote>

Dear GOD!

If you have nothing than insults to post, bloody #### stop posting.

Take the moral high ground to make ME look bad, genius.

You repeatedly call everyone who you disagree with a troll, and yet even the trolls pretend to post something important other than insults.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:29

Whatever, you pathetic hypocritical jackass.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:29

<quote>“Well, he started it!”
Come on, somebody take the high road and act like a grown-up, here.</quote>

Nothing like stirring the pot, eh, fnxtr?  The exchange <i>was</i> over, so do try to act like a grownup yourself.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 11 2006,06:30

BTW, he <i>did</i> start it, and facts actually matter to grownups.  Every single one of A_C's posts was primarily for the purpose of insulting me.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:30

<quote author="Popper's ghost">Every single one of A_C’s posts was primarily for the purpose of insulting me.</quote>

Really?

<quote author="Comment #118446">

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 10, 2006 07:22 AM (e)

   Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:

Dembski actually said something I agree with. Although, I see that as a WARNING rather than promotional.

If we teach kids with propaganda materials, instead of teaching them REAL critical thinking (not like that rIDiculous “they said ‘design’ in their paper” farce), of course they’re going to find Darwinian evolution hard to swallow.

When has a redneck fundie taught in the ways of the Fundi believed anything apart from literal Biblical truth?</quote>

<quote author="Comment #118449">

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 10, 2006 07:35 AM (e)

I think this David Williams is that troll again where he took on various identities and “theorums”.

   Just happened on to this web sight.

And it’s not a coincidence. It was made this way. Some unnamed force named “God” directed you to this site to convert us heathens.

   is found guilty of teaching evolution and now creation science or I.D. is totally made fun of.

Think of it as “Intelligent Karma”.

   I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys.

Why do people think that they strengthen their case by admitting that they don’t know the first thing about science OR apologetics?

   Why is there not life on other planets?

There is. But they’re intelligent enough to know not to come here.

Plus, they view us as “Mostly Harmless” so we’re not a threat to them.

   How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze.

Actually, the Earth orbits the sun in an OVAL. That means the distance from the sun varies by large distances (small astronomically, but large compared to us).

Not to mention that the sun is slowly getting hotter due to the natural life process of stars. The “perfect distance” from the sun has been expanding and it merely happened to expand past our planet.

   How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true.

What is the Earth running down? I thought the Earth was spherical.

   Evolution certainly is a religion - it takes more faith than to believe in I. D.

When you know nothing about evolution, that’s when belief in it is faith.

We’re not in the business in trying to make people believe. If you want to feel smart by putting down real scientists, try learning a thing or to.

   When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here.

Which explains why Darwin was trained to be a priest or something.

Didn’t Linnaeus also record some kind attempt to reason out a phylogenetic tree or something?

Why are Vedic Creationists also trying to come up with an alternative view?</quote>

Why, looking at all of my first two posts, it is SOOOO obvious that I STARTED IT.

Good on ya, Popper's ghost!
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:30

Not to mention that my second post contained a lot of satirical comments that, for some reason, Popper's ghost just loves to see as someone he can  call "idiot".

Try comprehending what people are intending to say, Popper's ghost. Don't be so hasty to prove how intelligent you are.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:31

<quote>Every single one of A_C’s posts was primarily for the purpose of insulting me.</quote>

And isn't it also funny how you expressed incredulity over my use of the word "attack", yet find no fault in your paranoid "oh they're all against me" defence...
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 11 2006,06:34

<quote>Nice try at evading the simple fact that you were mistaken about the significance of the fact that the Earth’s orbit is an oval, a fact that actually has nothing to do with Thomas’s bass-ackwards reasoning about the Earth being “distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze”.</quote>

You are quite slow.

Which part of:

<quote author="me">Such a tactic of discrediting the “just the right distance from the sun” was intended to make him realise he really should learn how to search for info.</quote>

Did you not understand? To further expand on this TACTIC, it's to present something that is a shock to their ignorant preconceived notions to make them scramble for higher ground (their natural reaction) in which they hopefully pick up some correct information along the way (the goal of the tactic).

No, I'll think I'll stick to fact that you really just want to show off your "intelligence" with an ####### attitude. Remember, anger is not the only discussion tactic, genius. The offer to talk is still available, angry dude.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 11 2006,10:34

Well, I see Puppy is still winning friends and influencing people.  (snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 12 2006,10:51

Mr. Coward will have to duke it out with himself (which is really all that was happening here).
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Aug. 12 2006,10:51

Dude, you just don't know when to shut the #### up, do ya.

(sigh)
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 12 2006,10:52

Take it to AtBC, Lenny, the right place for <i>all</i> your comments.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Aug. 12 2006,10:52

<quote>Take it to AtBC, Lenny, the right place for all your comments.</quote>

(swims up, sniffs bait, laughs and swims away)
Posted by: Moses on Aug. 12 2006,10:52

<quote>Comment #118914

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 11, 2006 05:21 PM (e)

Dude, you just don’t know when to shut the #### up, do ya.

(sigh)</quote>

Laughs at the irony of "Rev Dr" Pot...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 12 2006,10:53

<quote>Take it to AtBC, Lenny, the right place for all your comments.</quote>

They've made you a moderator? Hey, congratulations!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 12 2006,13:07

Quote (Guest @ Aug. 11 2006,11:30)
BTW, he <i>did</i> start it, and facts actually matter to grownups.  Every single one of A_C's posts was primarily for the purpose of insulting me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sniffles)  (sobs)  (sobs uncontrollably)

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.




(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 16 2006,08:04

<quote>Presumably the dog cells in question descended from free living cells in the distant past if you put any stock in common descent. So what they’ve done is not new, they’ve simply reverted to an ancient form.</quote>

That's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Anton Mates on Aug. 16 2006,08:04

<quote author="Spravid Dinger">Presumably the dog cells in question descended from free living cells in the distant past if you put any stock in common descent. So what they’ve done is not new, they’ve simply reverted to an ancient form.</quote>

But they're still genetically IDable as dog cells.  So no, they haven't reverted to an ancient form.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro on Aug. 16 2006,08:04

<quote>Presumably the dog cells in question descended from free living cells in the distant past if you put any stock in common descent. So what they’ve done is not new, they’ve simply reverted to an ancient form.</quote>Except the ancient form of free living cells these guys descended from where not immune system-evading dog parasites.  These dog tumor cells didn't "revert" to anything, they adapted to a new, parasitic lifestyle, and forever diverged from the dog genetic lineage.  If and when some of them will evolve to parasitize other organims and specialize accordingly (if they haven't already), a new complex evolutionary branch will take form.  The more I think of it, the more amazing this is.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro on Aug. 16 2006,08:04

<quote>They’re expressing an ancestral capability.</quote>If you mean "capability to live unicellularily", that may be true, but these guys express that "ancestral capability" along with many new others.  Focusing on that one feature to argue this is just "reversion" is like saying that by losing body hair humans reverted to amphibians.

<quote>Andrea, the way you say it it sounds like [gasp] saltation. Don’t let Dohn Javison know you said that or you’ll never hear the end of it.</quote>Except that for all we know this was a gradual process from normal dog cell, to progressively more highly transformed tumor, gradually acquiring mutations that facilitated spreading (e.g. as a metastasis) and immune evasion, to transition to parasite, to progressively more efficient and well-adapted parasite.  

Basically, this has nothing to do with Davison's nonsense.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2006,21:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 174
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,19:41  
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Aug. 16 2006,15:34)
DaveScot is an idiot but David Heddle is not.

Says you.  (shrug)

But hey, Mr O'Brien, since you seem determined to, ya know, share all of your religious wisdom with all of us, let me ask you a simple question before you begin your preaching . . .

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY persons) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone elses. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesnt seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isnt equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone elses.  Are you more holy than anyone else?  Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else?  Does God love you best?  Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history?  What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone elses?  Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?  Sorry, but I simply dont believe that you are infallible.  Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are?  Other than  your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone elses religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than your say-so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 11
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,20:10  
Quote
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY persons) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone elses. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions,or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesnt seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isnt equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible.


Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude read Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Aquinas, and Rousseau, among others, when trying to iron out your theology? Cuz' I do. Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude try to incorporate your mathematical/statistical knowledge into your God-belief as I do? Have you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude studied Attic Greek, the language of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and the precursor of the Koine Greek of the New Testament as I have?


Quote
You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor.


I do?



Quote
So what is it,exactly+that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone elses.


Uh, cuz' it is an educated, reflective one?


Quote
Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else?  Does God love you best?  Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history?


No.


Quote
Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?


Neither.



Quote
Sorry,but I simply dont believe that you are infallible.


That makes two of us.


Quote
No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 174
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,22:08  
Ah, so there's nothing other than your say-so.

Got it.

No reason for any of us to pay any attention to your religious opinions then, is there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 11
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,22:22  
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 16 2006,21:08)
No reason for any of us to pay any attention to your religious opinions then, is there.

Feel free to ignore me; I ignore your inanity except to occasionally correct your errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ichthyic



Posts: 1466
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,22:50  
Quote
Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude try to incorporate your mathematical/statistical knowledge into your God-belief as I do?


hmm, who else tried that and failed miserably...

who could it be...

why, William Dembski comes to mind.

yeah, that's worked out real well for him.  Amazing contribution to our general understanding... NOT.

care to regale us with similar twistings of logic and premise there, Robert?

Or do you feel you have done better than 'ol WD in your application of statistics and probability to theology?

do tell!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ichthyic



Posts: 1466
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2006,01:03  
LOL.

I was actually looking forward to another Sal look alike coming here and trying to wow us with ridiculously poor and inappropriate mathematical analogies.

Robert has all the fixins' to be a fantastic subject for study here at ATBC, if we could only draw him out of his shell....

oh, and Robert:

pizza delivery boy is no hypothetical, we even had to find a replacement when the original went on vacation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 11
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2006,01:20  
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 17 2006,00:03)
LOL.

I was actually looking forward to another Sal look alike coming here and trying to wow us with ridiculously poor and inappropriate mathematical analogies.

Robert has all the fixins' to be a fantastic subject for study here at ATBC, if we could only draw him out of his shell....

oh, and Robert:

pizza delivery boy is no hypothetical, we even had to find a replacement when the original went on vacation.

Sal C is a nice guy, but I ain't like him. I have distanced myself from Bill and DI over the last several months, which I don't think Sal would ever do. Also, he is YEC, which is off the deep end as far as I am concerned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mcc



Posts: 32
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2006,01:28  
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Aug. 16 2006,19:10)
Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude read Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Aquinas, and Rousseau, among others, when trying to iron out your theology?

Look out, folks! This one actually knows how to read!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey



Posts: 99
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2006,01:33  
Quote
Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude read Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Aquinas, and Rousseau, among others, when trying to iron out your theology?


How exactly does this change the debate?  Isn't it still about how you interpret your reading?  OR, are we to assume that you think you're the only one who reads philosophy?

Can you bring something new to your next comment?

--------------
may gravity be kind...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
k.e



Posts: 418
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2006,02:45  
Maquerading as Wobert's Pizza boy (Hy-pathetically)


Quote

Quote
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Aug. 16 2006,19:10)
Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude read Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Aquinas, and Rousseau, among others, when trying to iron out your theology?


Look out, folks! This one actually knows how to read!


Yeah ....well Foucault you to.

Marx my words ,I think you're all Frued's.

Voltaire's dick was bigger than Nietzsche's  and I've got the photos to prove it.

so there.

Oh did I mention Einstein? Well I have now.

so there again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 17 2006,13:36

Steve, did you get moderation priviledges and neglect to inform us?

shame on you, if so.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 17 2006,21:32

Eh, it's not an accomplishment, it's more like a duty. I've enjoyed this site for 2 years, so I have a duty to sweep the floors on the rare occasion a litterbug comes by.

edit: but according to the text at the left, I've been here less than a year. Okay. It's PT I've been enjoying for 2+ years. Same difference.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 17 2006,21:42

yeah, but you should warn us so we know you get to play "bad cop" now.

enjoy!
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 17 2006,22:06



I'll only interfere when someone's being disruptive. Which is pretty rare around here, AFAICT.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 17 2006,22:30

well, I'll try to give you more exercise.




(evil grin)
Posted by: Gary Hurd on Aug. 19 2006,13:29

<blockquote>I wonder why Michael Ruse was not recruited for this event. Historically he is one of the most popular guests at ID events. Perhaps he got similar bad vibes about this one.</blockquote>
Hey, a whore gots self respect ya know.  Or maybe to quote George Bernard Shaw, "We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price."
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 20 2006,03:24

Bloody h3ll, the quality of the BathroonWall is declining. Hurd I know is a total nutcase, whom, strangely I agree with: but he was only quoting Shaw; what is the world coming two ...or one?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 20 2006,03:33

Just wanted to see if the avatar I selected is working . . . .

Oh, and to let everyone know that a book-length condensed version of my Creatiion "Science" Debunked website is available as a free e-book at the Talk.Reason site:

< http://www.talkreason.org/articles/deception.cfm >

It contains a history of fundamentalism in the US, a history of the  ID/creationist movement, a short legal history, and detailed looks at  the Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Ohio and Dover cases.

It is free to download and distribute.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 20 2006,03:48

Lenny u quack me up!!!


GO boy!!!!!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 20 2006,03:54

Well, we'll see if Wes allows it to stay . . .
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 20 2006,04:01

Look I'm  not one given to much sentimentalism, but:
Lenny states:
 

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

Dedication
To Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes, who originally leaked the Wedge Document to the Internet. They did far more to protect democracy than they ever could have realized at the time.


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



Matt and Tim deserve the highest accolades of liberal activism (even IF they are conservatives, and I don't think too many true conservatives will disagree with me ).

Matt and Tim I owe you one, thanks.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 20 2006,04:06

Well,  Wes I would like to think ,is one of those true  conservatives I was hinting at.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 22 2006,06:16

Bob O'H - If my kid took that "course" by MacNeil, I would ask for a refund.   The only thing  "taught" was how to pander to the ID nuts like Hannah. (Where pander = nice word for suck up to.  Sorry Alan, IMO, your course was not science, it was sciency.

The lesson to be learned here is how Alan MacNeil tried to put lipstick on a pig. And I think Bob O'H just slipped it his tongue...  EEWWWW!
Posted by: don_quixote on Aug. 22 2006,19:27


Dennis O'Leary as she is most fondly remembered, as Snaggletooth in Star Wars Episode IV.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 22 2006,19:36

lol.

oh, btw, not that I'm the formal welcome wagon or anything, but er, welcome.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 22 2006,21:39

Is it hypocritical for me to giggle at Don's photoshop not ten minutes after I put a post on the AFDave thread demanding more decorum?

I'll leave that question for the philosophers.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 23 2006,10:38

not at all. the two are unrelated.

laugh away.

er, I should add I'm no philosopher, though.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,13:05

I'm watching Logan Gage of the Discovery Instute on C-SPAN2 right now. God these guys suck.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,13:10

It's been like 2 minutes and I can barely stand it. They've referred to Casey's "Research" in the ISCID journal. Now John West is blathering about dissent from darwin dot org. Now a poll saying laypeople believe 'both sides' should be taught. Oh jesus, this is horrid. John West makes this awful smacky noise every time he opens his mouth.

edit: at 7:12 pm the word 'persecuted' makes its appearence. That's it. I'm out.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,13:24

Switched to Tim Russert. He's interviewing Thomas Ricks about his book Fiasco. Much better. Listening to someone who knows what he's talking about.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,14:05

Ricks: "I've made 5 trips to Iraq. Each time, I think, 'man, it couldn't possibly get any worse.' Each time I went back, it was. We're in act 3 of a 5-act tragedy here. Rosencranz and Guildenstern are still alive and happy and walking around the stage. In three years we might look back and say 'you know what? '06 wasn't that bad.'"
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,14:25

flipped back after russert was over. West and Luskin are answering questions. west: (paraphrasing) "I think the evidence should be viewed but the other side just wants to talk about motives. motives motives motives. That shouldn't be relevant, only the evidence should matter. And btw Steven Weinberg, Eugenie Scott, and Barbara Forrest are atheists." Also, Casey Luskin looks like a Disney-anthropomorphized rat.

Some guy in the audience asks about a supposed list of 18 predictions ID makes. West responds claiming that Darwinism predicts no function in Junk DNA, but that function in Junk DNA was 'an early prediction' of ID.

There looks like about 30 people in the audience. The first guy I saw ask a question said he was from the CS Lewis Society. The next guy asking a question is from the Family Research Council.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 26 2006,16:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
only the evidence should matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hey! they stole our line again!

bastards.

can't they come up with something original once in a while?

make that "ever"?

soo... let me get this straight.  The lying DI dogs get CSPAN... and PZ gets "infidelguy" on radio.

*sigh*

frickin' doomed.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,16:29

You should have seen it. West basically said that the Darwinist position is that religious people should be disqualified from office. It was simply awful.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 26 2006,17:34

don't tell me you were drinking mango vodka while watching that?

you must have a cast iron stomach.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,17:43

In fact I'm still drinking mango vodka.

Yeah, I was able to take maybe an aggregate ~30 minutes of it. I won't lie to you, it was enough to inspire homicidal fantasies, but I calmed down the with what always calmed me down: reminders of their complete failure. 15 years into the movement, they've got nothing. no theory, no hypotheses, no predictions, no experiments, no nothing. They tried, and they failed.

The world keeps spinning, evolutionary biologists keep figuring things out and publishing, and the whackos keep failing to make a difference.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 26 2006,18:12



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

They tried, and they failed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not exactly, they managed to put chimpy mcgrin into office.

Coulter's book is a bestseller.

We're spending dozens of posts having to tear apart Wells' latest drivel.

Ted Haggerty's megachurch in Colorodo is growing 18% per year.

It's enough to make one drink mango vodka!

thank god for term limits (pun intended).

cheers
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 26 2006,18:23

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 27 2006,00:12)
It's enough to make one drink mango vodka!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(does shot, followed by Coke chaser)

Hey, any port in a storm!
Posted by: Ichthyic on Aug. 26 2006,18:29

*sounds foghorn*
Posted by: Ulyanov on Aug. 27 2006,10:43

This is really something Krebs, in view of the fact that on your own site you allowed posters to be singled out for personal attack, some so bad even you had to delete them finally.

On the other hand, although you have a thread for wayward comments, this has the effect of allowing those vicious attacks to remain up.

And, of course, the vile things said about believers by some of your posters, a couple of who are board members, are well known.

You are a real piece of work, Krebs.

You let others do your fighting for you.

Wimp.
Posted by: Ulyanov on Aug. 27 2006,10:45

This is really something Krebs, in view of the fact that on your own site you allowed posters to be singled out for personal attack, some so bad even you had to delete them finally.

On the other hand, although you have a thread for wayward comments, this has the effect of allowing those vicious attacks to remain up.

And, of course, the vile things said about believers by some of your posters, a couple of who are board members, are well known.

You are a real piece of work, Krebs.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein on Aug. 29 2006,07:24

The problem is that Myers makes claims that science supports atheism, which as Jack Krebs at Kansas Citizens for Science always tells us goes beyond anything that science can do one way or the other.

Have of his site is devoted to third rate atheshit rants that can be found on any atheist site and have ZIP to do with science.

Just like Kansas Citizens for Science
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 29 2006,15:23

I think this has been covered on PT before, but if you haven't seen it, there's a good long New Yorker piece on the Dover case:

< http://www.wesjones.com/darwin.htm >

and when I saw this illustration in the magazine (I subscribe to the New Yorker), I giggled:


Posted by: Collin DuCrane on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

Is not Intelligent Design really just a more politically correct Darwinism, meant to pry creationists from the altar?

Any bio-genesis that allows thermodynamic first causes to life is a fallacial. How can entropic forces be organizational forces? Isn't that like expecting a pile of rust to slowly become a Cadillac?

Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time. Methinks many scientists have been playing the results backwards and exclaiming "See! We don't need a creator! I can show the rust turning into a Caddy!".

Almost like a fundamentalist playing Ozzy backwards and claiming "Listen! Evidence of demons!"

Birth and rebirth are observable phenomena that only exist within the context of pre-organized material, biological or otherwise. Perhaps a discussion of Information Theory might be appropriate to this thread...
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

Collin DuCrane said:

"Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time."

Like the human foetus?
Posted by: J. G. Cox on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

Or Lenny Flank's favorite, the snowflake.
Posted by: stevaroni on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

<blockquote>Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time.</blockquote>

And that would mean what? That you've been disorganizing since the day you were conceived.

That you're less organized than you were when you were a clump of 8 cells.

Sheesh! all that time spent sitting through first grade wasted, since you know less now than you did then! Shoulda played hookey.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pray in my pagan Galapagos shrine, the turtles await.
Posted by: steve s on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

<quote>LOL

Collin, learn some thermodynamics, or shut up. Your ignorant rants serve no purpose.</quote>

Au contraire! They amuse me.

The problem with Collin's comments is he doesn't make enough of them, in that AtBC thread we made for him.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

<quote>Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time. </quote>

So which of the following is true?

a) plants don't grow from seeds
b) thermodynamics doesn't govern the growth of plants
c) all plants eventually wither and die, all species eventually become extinct, "over time" means "in the long run", not "monotonically", and therefore the 2LOT has no bearing on evolution
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

<quote>Perhaps a discussion of Information Theory might be appropriate to this thread…</quote>

According to information theory, a sequence of random events has high information content.  Evolution transfers information from the environment to the genome.  The genome is a lossy encoding of the sequence of environments of the ancestors of the organism, which is why the organism is "fit" with respect to those environments, and why organisms reflect characteristics of ancestors that existed in quite different environments, characteristics that may not be optimal or even effective with respect to the organism's current environment.
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 29 2006,16:30

<quote>How can entropic forces be organizational forces? Isn’t that like expecting a pile of rust to slowly become a Cadillac?

Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time.</quote>

That is very true.

Once, when I put a bowl of water in the freezer, the water evaporated.

<quote>Isn’t that like expecting a pile of rust to slowly become a Cadillac?</quote>

And the fact that iron rusts due to iron and oxygen organising into molecules of rust does nothing for you?

The "pile of rust into a Cadillac" uses a naive understanding of "order", which in itself is an inaccurate and dishonest understanding/misinterpretation of thermodynamicism.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 29 2006,16:36

<quote>And the fact that iron rusts due to iron and oxygen organising into molecules of rust does nothing for you?</quote>

The chatbot should add <url href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03046.htm">this</url> to its database:

<quote>All the "rusting" reactions are exothermic to the tune of from about -60 to -190 kcal/mol That is they all liberate a substantial amount of heat.</quote>
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 29 2006,16:46

"Dennis O'Leary as she is most fondly remembered, as Snaggletooth in Star Wars Episode IV."

Wow, that's actually pretty uncanny!   :O
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II on Aug. 29 2006,19:05

<quote author="Anonymous_Coward">Once, when I put a bowl of water in the freezer, the water evaporated.</quote>

Actually, it will.  All solids evaporate at a certain rate.  Ice in a freezer evaporates relatively quickly (as solids go), though this is largely caused by opening and closing the freezer door.  The cooling elements draw moisture out of the air, which leaves the air to hydrate itself from water sources further away from cooling elements.

Put a bowl of water in the freezer, it will freeze, then evaporate as it drives the ice to build up on the walls.  I've seen it happen to ice cubes nobody used for ages, they were just little ice balls sitting in a cube tray.  Kinda neat, actually.

All of which goes to show that thermodynamics is MUCH more fun than the simplistic nonsense Colin spews as holy writ.  Next up on Neat Thermodynamics Tricks with Water:  <url href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercooling">Supercooling:  How to freeze water by adding energy!</url>
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II on Aug. 29 2006,19:05

Eeek!  I was posting that before the material it's a response to was removed, but the server conked out (or something did).  I did something else for a few minutes and then reposted, not realizing it was all in vain!  Please don't moderate me, I'll be good!  :-)
Posted by: Anonymous_Coward on Aug. 29 2006,19:05

Nice, Suttkus v2.0.

I mean, even the subject of heat transfer takes up at least a whole semester to teach the fundamentals (at least at the university I go to).
Posted by: Collin DuCrane on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

Perhaps we should consider what Lysenko, Von Haekel, and Darwin have in common. Their evolutionist aplogectic doctrines were each adopted by policital regimes who believed them to be foundational in terms of explaining powers which control the fate of human destiny.

Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct. Apologetics is fundamental to all faith-based doctrine.

From Webster's dictionary religion is:
"A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

Evolutionary science is then a religion. The constitution forbids teaching articles of faith in publically funded schools. Teaching Darwinian apologetics in schools in then unconstitutional, since it is an article of faith.

Once again, Wells is in the ballpark, and Leonard is his Nikolai Vavilov reference.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

Collin, congratulations!  You've just dropped out of the "troll" category.

Straight down to "maroon."

Collin, say hi to Larry.  Mr. Farflungdung, please shake hands with Mr. DuCrane.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

"Evolutionary science is then a religion. The constitution forbids teaching articles of faith in publically funded schools. Teaching Darwinian apologetics in schools in then unconstitutional, since it is an article of faith."

Please EXPLAIN which part of Evolution is 'super-natural' other than the fact that you're too dumb to get your head 'round it or too ignorant to even care, since it conflicts with your narrow world-view.  

"Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct."

And every Christian nation was as nice as pie.  You really have been ignoring every critique of Well's book, haven't you?
Posted by: stevaroni on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<blockquote>Perhaps we should consider what Lysenko, Von Haekel, and Darwin have in common. </blockquote>

No, lets consider the differences. Now lessee, what immediately comes to mind? Oh yeah! I remember - Darwin was right.

If you find that politically inconvenient, I'm sorry, but one plus one <i>does</i> equal two, the earth <i>is</i> round, and stuff evolves.

If you believe that God, for reasons not adequately explored, requires you to pretend that a simple, readily observable law of nature does not exist, well, I respectfully submit that you might just misunderstand some divine intent somewhere.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

A dictionary definition does not determine what is constitutional.

I believe it was McLean vs the Ark. Board of Education where the Supreme Court ruled that creationism is a religious tenet.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is not.  It does not require belief, faith-based or otherwise.  The theory of evolution is the general acceptance of the results of scientific study from a number of scientific disciplines, not only biology.

You don't have to "believe" the results of all this work.  You can spend 5 years on a boat in South America and do the observations yourself.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote>Please EXPLAIN which part of Evolution is ‘super-natural’ other than the fact that you’re too dumb to get your head ‘round it or too ignorant to even care, since it conflicts with your narrow world-view.</quote>

He may be interpreting it as "“A strong belief in a supernatural power or a strong belief in powers that control human destiny”; that would not be inconsistent with his perspicacity as previously demonstrated.
Posted by: stevaroni on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<blockquote>Collin said...
Apologetics is fundamental to all faith-based doctrine.</blockquote>

And while I'm at it, aren't all the major religions faith based doctrines, or does faith-based-doctrine only apply to non-faith-based science?
Posted by: Coin on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

I wonder, do you think gravity would qualify as a "power which controls human destiny"?
Posted by: GuyeFaux on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote>Since sentences within his posts seem to rarely, if ever, have any obvious connection to either the thing he is responding to or other parts of the post in which they appear, we likely would not be able to tell the difference.</quote>
So you're saying this guy doesn't pass the Turing test.
Posted by: Collin DuCrane on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

Wells' world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view. Anyone who challenges the materialistic world-view of the Darwinian narrative is subjected to ad hominems, like Mr. Leonard (and certainly Mr. Wells)

The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism. Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.

In fact, gradualism then disqualifies evolution as a scientific theory. The only question remains then whether Darwinism belongs in the supernatural realm of truth or the supernatural realm of lies.

My world-view truly is the narrow gate, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell.

At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

But it's perfectly all right with you, Collin, to trot out every tired, recycled <i>ad theorems</i> ever crafted by forked-tongued demagogues.  Your (rather retarded) brand of religion is A-OK, so jah say.  Evolution is mucho bad mojo because, well, Wells says so.

Truth must bow before "the Truth."  Lies are fine, just so long as the Son shines.

Maroon.
Posted by: Coin on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote author="The Bathroom Wall Incarnate">Wells’ world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view.</quote>
Wells' world-view is founded entirely on political correctness; he wants the scientific world-view, which is currently politically agnostic, to bend so that it is more correct from the perspective of Wells' politics.

But, of course, that doesn't matter, since similar to the way that we have seen words like "materialism", "postmodernism", "monism", etc, being used in your previous posts, the word "political correctness" here is not being used because it means anything, but only for the emotional response it provokes.

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation</quote>
As was just being discussed (see GuyeFaux's last post), it is debatable whether your posts serve as examples of conversation at all.
Posted by: gwangung on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<i> At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, </i>

To a naive viewer, perhaps.

But you lack knowledge to back up your points, you substitute blind assertion for fact (really, who made YOU God to decide what does and does not constitute salvation) and you parrot points without understanding them.

There are examples of really, bad, really poorly thought out conversation, when what is being demanded is rigorous rhetoric.
Posted by: GuyeFaux on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.</quote>

No they don't. Ignoring other people's comments/criticisms/points while rehashing every creationist argument under the Sun does *not* count as good conversation. In fact it's incredibly rude.

And thus far there have been zero ad-hominems. Insults, yes.
Posted by: Coin on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote author="gwangung">To a naive viewer, perhaps.</quote>
That's probably the intended audience.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

"My world-view truly is the narrow gate, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell."

Weren't the Romans a Christian nation when they fell?

I too am seeing a shade of maroon.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.</quote>

BWAHAHAHA!  Let's just grab your first post in this thread:

<quote>Their evolutionist aplogectic doctrines were each adopted by policital regimes who believed them to be foundational in terms of explaining powers which control the fate of human destiny. Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct.</quote>

What could be more ad hominem than that?  These gentlemen's doctrines were apparently wrong, not because of their content, but because of who adopted them.  And what is "the politically correct", if not pure ad hominem?
Posted by: stevaroni on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<blockquote>Collin opined....
The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism. Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.</blockquote>

Nope, you don't get that one. To some extent, what you say is true. No scientific theory is ever "proven". It's more a matter of "this is the best we've got right now".

But it's completely disingenuous to lump evolution with religion and say neither has "proven" it's case so both are equally valid.

Evolution has boxes and boxes of hard physical evidence behind it. True, we cannot definitively say that x happens <i>exactly</i> this way or that way, but we know absolutely, positively that we're in the right ballpark because all the physical evidence says so.

Against this, religion has, what, exactly?

Old books?

Fond hopes?

Good intentions?

<i>Warm, fuzzy feelings</i>?.

Not good enough when you're going up against science because <i>science has all the friggin' dead bodies</i>. Dead bodies are about as un-super-natural as it's possible to get.

And you can't just point to the dead bodies and say "Nope, that doesn't exist. Proves nothing", because guess what? The dead bodies don't spontaneously go away, no matter how hard you argue. Noooo, if you want them to go away, you have have to <i>explain</i> them away. Go ahead, I'm waiting. I've been waiting two decades.

So no, Collin, it's not the same. You don't get to use the "neither side has 'proved' it's point" argument. Science has put a lot of evidence on the table and still admits it has things to learn, but ID has provided <i>nothing</i>.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote>Wells' world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view.</quote>

This is true if one ignores the meaningless string of letters "policitally".

<quote>The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism.</quote>

The geological "world-view" was also founded on gradualism, but geology is not supernatural.  As with Darwin, science have moved on from the initial conception as new evidence was acquired and old ideas were challenged.

<quote>Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.</quote>

Nice try, but neither gradualism nor any other "ism" is accepted by science when the evidence contradicts it, and it is no more supernatural than pan-americanism.

<quote>The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell.”</quote>

There's no such thing as "the broad Darwinian world-view", neither the scientific theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory is an "abyss", and the problems of the Soviets and Nazis had nothing to do with evolution, and certainly nothing to do with "gradualism".
Posted by: RLC on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

<quote author="Collin DuCrane">The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism.</quote>

Huh? What the bejeebus does he mean by gradualism and how is the "Darwinist" world-view depend on it? Does punctuated equilibrium depend on whatever gradualism is? How does the Permian debacle fit into a gradualism world-view; or the Cretaceous extinction? Or am I just feeding the trolls?

Oh, and DuCrane doesn't engage in <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, he just says that anybody who accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution is a devotee of Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler. No ad hominems there, no siree!
Posted by: Darth Robo on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

This could be where he gets 'gradualism' from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism >

"Gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes."

But the only obstacle I can think of that would be a problem for gradualism would be an Earth that is only 10000 years old or less.  Hmmm...
Posted by: ag on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

in comment 124787 Collin du Crane wrote:
<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.</quote>
Really? du Crane seems to forget his own previous comment 124763 where he had the gall to insult the memory of the great scientist Vavilov, murdered by the communist rulers of the USSR, by comparing him to some third-rate creationist understudy, lacking any credentials, who attempted to get a degree through manipulation of the degree-awarding procedure.  
du Crane's impudence and delusional self-assurance seem to equal his ignorance. Such a "good conversation" belongs in the trash can known as Uncommon Descent blog - there such arrogant utterances are commonplace and not considered ad-hominem.
Posted by: richCares on Aug. 31 2006,17:27

Collin, Collin go to "Uncommon Descent and stay there. You were referred to as a "maroon", that is a polite way of saying "m o r o n" (in case you didn't know). You really should go where these type of people are appreciated, no data or facts required, just say something that the Dembski staff agrees with. Here you gotta state things with reality, GOOD BYE.
Posted by: Banned by KCFS on Sep. 01 2006,14:30

No, don't know Yuel, and Ive seen posts by JB and I'm proud to be lumped in with him and Goldstein and all the rest.

Aa to the Romans, they killed lots of Christians, you know, Nero and that gang.

As to the inquistion, etc.  Roman Catholics.

The Roman Catholics are a political gang...they hate ID too.

This is all about pushing atheism, not science.

the imaginary billions of benefial mutations that acconted for the rise from the slime to man are a creation myth.

As for Gy, jees, I don't want to see a rise out of him.  Thats weird, hes weird...imagin picking a name after a terrorist type.
Posted by: GuyeFaux on Sep. 01 2006,14:31

At the risk of repeating myself, and at the risk of feeding the trolls:

<quote author="I">if you’re gonna claim that all Communists/Nazis are atheists, you’ll need proof.</quote>

So, tell me: of those BAD commies that killed as you say 100 m people, how many were atheists?

That's my last response to you if you continue trolling/provoking. I assure you, there's nothing you can say to get a rise out of me.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Sep. 01 2006,14:31

"But dialectical MATAERIALSIM is atheistic and thats what the push for philosophcial materialism is all about."

But hey, if we wanna play 'connect the dots' games, couldn't we also connect Christians to some pretty nasty stuff done by the Nazi's, Romans and quite posibly during the crusades?  'Onward Christian Soldiers' and all that.  Except I'm not stupid enough to lump ALL Christians as nasty people.  

Speaking of being 'Banned by KCFS', you're not also known as 'Yuel' or 'JB', are you?
Posted by: Banned by KCFS, on Sep. 01 2006,14:32

As to your legitimate query Guyefaux...love that name, wish I has thought of it...the commies are the ones who killed the 100 million in the 20th century alone.

(Sources, the Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press and The Gulag Archipelago series by Solzhenitsyn.)

And this refers to political killings, tortures, forced starvation in camps, etc. not casualties of war.  Those were additional.

Atheists?  You bet. Thats what dialectical MATERIALSIM is all about.

Communism itself does not have to be atheistic, and the idea has been around for 2000 years.

But dialectical MATAERIALSIM is atheistic and thats what the push for philosophcial materialism is all about.
Posted by: GuyeFaux on Sep. 01 2006,14:33

<quote>Athestis, who killed 100 million people in the twentieth century alone.</quote>
Example? And if you're gonna claim that all Communists/Nazis are atheists, you'll need proof. And no, the purported ideologies of their leaders don't dount.

And let me say that your ad hominems are <i>incredibly</i> offensive. Not to say that I'm offended.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Sep. 01 2006,14:54

<quote>It always amuses me that philosphists and theologsts wind themselves into the most bewildering knots. </quote>

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse."  -- K Marx


"Dole Office Clerk: "Occupation?"
Comicus: "Stand up philosopher."
Dole Office Clerk: "What?"
Comicus: "Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension."
Dole Office Clerk: "Oh, a bullshit artist!"

--M Brooks



(grin)
Posted by: k.e. on Sep. 01 2006,14:54

It always amuses me that philosphists and theologsts wind themselves into the most bewildering knots. Which brings to mind an on old crossword clue; An 'o' leading to an argument. **Answer at bottom... don't look if you want to spoil it.

-2 entries unashamedly stolen from The Devils Dictionary

PHILOSOPHY, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

THEOSOPHY***, n. An ancient faith having all the certitude of religion and all the mystery of science. The modern Theosophist holds, with the Buddhists, that we live an incalculable number of times on this earth, in as many several bodies, because one life is not long enough for our complete spiritual development; that is, a single lifetime does not suffice for us to become as wise and good as we choose to wish to become. To be absolutely wise and good — that is perfection; and the Theosophist is so keen-sighted as to have observed that everything desirous of improvement eventually attains perfection. Less competent observers are disposed to except cats, which seem neither wiser nor better than they were last year. The greatest and fattest of recent Theosophists was the late Madame Blavatsky, who had no cat.

**Tautology

THEOSOPHY*** also known as THEOLOGY a discredited pastime indulged in by single men with too much time on their hands.
Posted by: Also banned, and proud of it! on Sep. 01 2006,17:28

Jack Krebs resorting to the well know tactic of making the opponent appear in the worst light possible.

And, in this case, he is lying.

But there is one common factor, all the people he bans, he continues to mention over at KCFS when he needs a bogeyman.

How cowardly!!!!!!
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 01 2006,18:51

<quote>How comfortable, blaming the recipient for your inability to communicate, or even show evidence of such communication.</quote>

No, you're blaming your refusal to read or comprehend my arguments on me.

<quote>I did not mean to characterize your contribution as idiocy</quote>

I didn't say you did, dimwit.

<quote>I was pointing out how you used the term in your rejection of ID.</quote>

You're lying, as you have throughout this thread.

<quote>Since little or no logic or reasons, let alone arguments were presented</quote>

Liar.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 01 2006,19:11

<quote>How comfortable, blaming the recipient for your inability to communicate, or even show evidence of such communication.</quote>

No, you're blaming your refusal to read or comprehend my arguments on me.

<quote>I did not mean to characterize your contribution as idiocy</quote>

I didn't say you did, dimwit.  Your lying characterization was that my comments only talked of idiocy and nothing relevant.  That's as blatant a lie as there could be, as even the most casual perusal of my comments would reveal.

<quote>I was pointing out how you used the term in your rejection of ID.</quote>

You're lying, as you have throughout this thread.  I have spent very little time characterizing ID or IDers.

<quote>Since little or no logic or reasons, let alone arguments were presented</quote>

Liar.  You have simply ignored my logic, reasons, and arguments.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 01 2006,22:31

<quote author="draTevaD">Every programmer with more than half a brain takes about 10 seconds to figure out that taking an asynchronous sample from a clock or counter/timer is the way to get a random seed for a psuedo-random number generator.</quote>

How does a program take an "asynchronous" sample?  Perhaps your Atari experience is inadequate to understand the point of

< http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/man-cgi?urandom+7D >

<quote>The /dev/random and /dev/urandom files are special files that are a source for random bytes generated by the kernel random number generator device. The /dev/random and /dev/urandom files are suitable for applications requiring high quality random numbers for cryptographic purposes.

The generator device produces random numbers from data and devices available to the kernel and estimates the amount of randomness (or "entropy") collected from these sources. The entropy level determines the amount of high quality random numbers that are produced at a given time....</quote>
Posted by: Also banned in Kansas on Sep. 02 2006,02:29

Jack says we are trolls.

He says ignore us.

Run away.

Like he ran away from the evolution hearing.

Like he wants to run away from the culture wars.

But he doesn't really mean it, because although he BANS us or just sends us down the old MEMORY HOLE, he does not hesiate to still talk about us on his forums when he needs a bogeyman.

If we did not exist, you would find it necessary to invent us.
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 02 2006,10:33

<i>Laudan warned that the Arkansas decision would come back to haunt science by “perpetuating and canonizing a false stereotype on what science is and how it works.”</i>

That's funny, Pim, because you yourself jumped into the pot with Hannah on the Allen Loves Hannah Blog and tried to argue that "scientists don't prove anything."

Remember how that argument worked out, Pim?  Let me refresh your memory because your memory seems really quite selective: you lost the argument.
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 02 2006,10:40

<i>As PvM has a habit of misrepresenting statements by failing to go back to see what they refer to and instead responding with non sequiturs</i>

I agree with this statement, by the way.  The evidence on this thread strongly supports the statement.

For the record, I have been begging Pim for a long time to stop pretending that there is more substance to the claims of creationism peddlers than meets the eye.  Pim refuses to stop, in spite of the fact that he is not especially articulate or clear (while other contributors are).  I think this is simply arrogance on Pim's part, the same sort of arrogance that afflicts Pim's friend, Allen.  The sort of arrogance that lets Pim claim that any suggestion that his contributions to PT be reduced are "candy for IDers."

That's a real laugh.
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 02 2006,10:47

Re the alleged "effectiveness" and "ingenious" nature of Allen's class:

Look at how many thousands of words were wasted on trying to “understand” that three well-documented unapologetic LYING SACKS (Hannah Maxson, Sal Cordova, Bill Dembski) were (surprise!) spewing lying crap when it took Michael Hubl two or three sentences to accomplish the same goal in a fashion that is understandable to even the most mathematically incompetent moron.

Do you remember how it played out Pim? You and Allen (and Hannah, of course, who’s barred from posting here at any length by Dear Leaders Luskin and Sal) seem to be pretending it never happened. Do you remember, Pim?

Here’s what happened: Michael Hubl asked Hannah (who claimed that Dembski’s formulations were “easy to understand”) to provide everyone with unambiguous definitions of the essential terms. Hannah did that (or tried to). Then Michael asked Hannah to show everyone how the terms could be applied to evaluating whether a particular bacterial protein (FtsK) evolved or was designed by a “mysterious alien being.”

Do you remember Hannah’s response, Pim? Share it with us and tell us (1) why Michael’s takedown of Hannah was less effective than yours or Allen’s endless drivel; and (2) tell us why Allen banned Michael from posting immediately after Sal began to whine and complain about how his poor little darling was being treated. Which of the “ground rules” had Michael violated by requesting that Hannah support her bogus claims about evolutionary biology?

Inquiring minds would like to know these things.  Yet you refuse to even try to address them, Pim, choosing instead to keep moving the goalposts ...
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 02 2006,17:31

<quote>Nope, observation by someone on AntiEvolution.org. I am sure you understand the difference?</quote>

There is no "difference"; political ads employ quotes all the time in their ad hominem arguments.

<quote>Nice way to avoid dealing with the facts.</quote>

<b>AD HOMINEM</b>

<quote>You are conflating various concepts.</quote>

No, I disentangled two concepts -- the operational, empirical question of whether prayer affects healing, and the metaphysical question of whether God is the cause of that effect.

<quote>The hypothesis that God hears our prayers and acts upon them is a scientific hypothesis, in fact it is a scientific hypothesis which can be and has been tested.</quote>

No, only the hypothesis of whether pray affects healing has been tested.  Please propose a test to determine whether God is the cause of any detected effect.  Perhaps we can go from there.  I hope you'll forgive me for not spending my entire Labor Day weekend debating all the points I disagree with, and I hope you won't engage in any (further) ad hominems about any failure to do so.
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 03 2006,08:06

Pim

<i>Or science and its methodology becomes dogmatic.</i>

Not really.  Not unless by "dogmatic" you mean "capable of a reasonably fixed definition."

You really are playing some slick games here, Pim, and I note again that it is not clear why.  You seem to want us to believe that saying that people who claim that "mysterious undefined alien beings" are interfering with nature in a detectable way are making unscientific claims is "bad" or "wrong."

We have asked you many times to provide some evidence for this assertion and you have failed to do so.  You are now claiming, it appears, that calling the "claims" or "theories" of ID peddlers "unscientific a priori" is "incorrect".  I can gather from your comments that you are not going to change your mind about this utterly irrelevant assertion (I, for one, could care less whether the claims are unscientific a priori or a posteriori -- who gives a crap when the bottom line is that they are unscientific?).

Up above, I asked you whether the theory that a mysterious alien being is controlling everything (and I meant everything) you do or say "unscientific".  You gave a really lame answer that would make a creationist proud.  You said "Not necessarily" and you ran away.

So tell me Pim, in this universe, in 2006, in what way is the theory "scientific."  And for the record, I don't care if you call it a "theory" a "hypothesis" or a "claim".  Tell me how it's scientific.  <b>Explain your answer.</b>

And just so we can all have a sense of how strange your thinking on this subject is, let me ask you two questions, Pim, since you are a professing Christian:

Is the claim that "undefined deities exist and we can detect them" unscientific?

What is the principal distinction between your belief that your deity exists and the claim that a "mysterious alien being interferes with reality in a detectable way"?

And, Pim, let's not forget the old "false dichotomy" game that creationists play.  I've seen this happening in this thread as well.  I think we all agree that we should attack ID peddlers for the failure to show us that their baloney algorithms actually WORK.  Where none of us appear to agree with you, Pim, is that it is "bad" or "wrong" or "ineffective" to attack ID peddlers for <b>all the other really good reasons</b>
that support the claim that they are a pack of lying religious creeps devoted to pushing unscientific, religious nonsense on society.

Finally, you continue to evade addressing a very basic question which is WHY you insist, without evidence, that inarticulate vague claims which necessarily involve Gods are best debunked by lengthy mathematical arguments when they can be addressed in a single short paragraph -- exactly like Michael Hubl addressed them on the Allen Loves Hannah blog.

You keep flipping the argument around, Pim.  The burden is on YOU -- just as it is on the creationists -- to show us where the science is in the ID peddlers claims.  Simply  repeating over and over again (as you have in this thread) that the ID peddlers say no supernatural beings are necessary does not cut the cake.  Why?  They are liars.  Or do you want to dispute that as well, Pim?
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 03 2006,08:47

<i>Are you familiar with Dembski’s design inference? Point out where in the both the definition of design as well as in the methodology, Dembski invokes a deity. I feel in no way that I should restrict my comments just because you do not comprehend ID’s arguments and argue in a rather ad hoc manner that ID requires the invocation of a deity.</i>

LOL!!!!

Are you Hannah Maxson's sock puppet???

I think I'm going to puke.

Does it matter to you at all, Pim, that your last comment is virtually identical to those made by Discovery Institute script-reciters every day?

And you are here telling *me* what scientists should be saying to ID peddlers?

While you evade my questions and recite creationist scripts?

Wow.  Just wow.
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 05 2006,07:37

TL

<i>But you are repeating your earlier argument without looking to my objections, thus forcing me to repeat myself. I don’t see any sense in continuing.</i>

Welcome to the club, TL!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 05 2006,13:35

<quote author="PvM"><quote author="Glen">

So you accept the IDist conception of science, and you adopt their other tactics as well, being “polite” while writing blatantly untrue statements like this one: “Glen mostly asserted that those familiar with science would understand the problems with my arguments and realize that ID is vacuous, further suggesting that my position would make it impossible to reject the teaching of ID in schools on constitutional grounds.”</quote>

Nope, do not accept ID’s concept of science. What I am saying is that if one wants to reject ID as unscientific one has to show why ID’s arguments are flawed. If ID attacks the foundation of science, namely Methodological Naturalism, then arguing that ID is not science because it fails MN, is a flawed argument.</quote>

How about the egregiously false statement about what I had posted?  That was my main point there.

MN is not the foundation of science.  Kant gave us a pretty good method of doing science sans any concern about "naturalism" or any such thing, and his basic ideas inform science up to the present.  

Phenomenology a la Husserl (though I would disagree with a lot of the specifics of Husserl) is perfectly capable of producing a workable science, and it is famously following the Kantian line of thought.

I have never once said that science depended on MN, and I hardly think that merely attacking MN bothers science much, if any.

<quote author="PvM">
I additionally argued that 1) the fear that one could not reject ID from being taught in schools on constitutional grounds is unwarranted and that 2) such a fear should not be a reason to avoid making these arguments.</quote>

You failed to provide evidence for that claim.

<quote author="PvM">So far, Glen has failed to explain why these positions are flawed.</quote>

I addressed the issues several times, and you completely ignored what I wrote about these matters.  Once again your claim is not true, and it is reprehensible that you continue to produce so many false statements.

<quote author="PvM"><quote author="Glen">And even though you are so very wrong about science that you supposed that evolution is teleological, you still think that you are able to dictate what science is, without, of course, addressing the points that we have brought up.</quote>

I did not suppose that evolution is teleological, I showed that 1) scientists use (strong) teleological language when it comes to biology and evolution and 2) I showed how people like Mayr, Nagel, Ayala and Ruse have shown that teleological nature of biology and evolution as it deals with natural selection and function. Rather than ignore these issues, I argue that actually confronting them and/or embracing these concepts would take away a lot of ammunition from IDers without having to compromise science.</quote>

And where did you "show" these things?  The only "argument" I saw was where you claimed that evolution is teleological because we speak of "apparent design", something I also denied as a generality.  You didn't deal with these things, did you?  

What is worse, arguments from scientists' language, without discussing what it actually means as shown by papers, is at best tendentious.

Besides, appeals to authority are meaningless, and only point out the fact that questionable sources of "knowledge" were used in MacNeill's seminar.

<quote author="PvM">
As far as cause and effect are concerned:

<quote>As you refuse to invoke normal cause and effect demands for any “scientific hypothesis”, you fall for the trick that Dembski is trying to pull, that “design” doesn’t need a plausible cause in order for the “design inference” to be treated as science (even if a vacuous one).</quote>

First of all, the ‘normal cause and effect demands’ are illusionary in the sense that such demands would fail to consider string theory or multiverses or even the Big Bang to be scientific.</quote>

I have posted as much about string theory and multiverses.  Here is what I wrote about string theory and teaching:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-78294 >

Most of the Big Bang in fact does rely on evidence (mostly cause and effect) for its acceptance.  That origins would eventually reach into areas where cause and effect no longer rule is not surprising.  

And once again you create your own strawman.  I quite carefully included "classical" many times when I mentioned the importance of cause and effect, because biolgy is far and away a classical science, not QM or the Big Bang.  "Normal cause and effect demands" would imply the same thing, cause and effect in classical science, not in QM, etc.  You rip the causality matter from the context I carefully put it into, and pretend to be answering it when you have misrepresented my careful writing.

Here is what I wrote in the first post in which I was directly countering your statements:

<quote>The real problem is that evidently you still do not understand that scientific hypotheses do not operate via the elimination of unscientific “phenomena” of “chance and regularity”. Not just anything that is a hypothesis is also a scientific hypothesis. So you’re going through the motions without heeding the requisites of science, causal chains (in classical science) and the essential need for evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

That is to say, a hypothesis needs to be tested against effects which are entailed by the antecedent causes. A real design hypothesis would say, humans design many things that involve rational solutions to a problem which appears to be addressed by these designs. Hence an apparent machine that has rational (as opposed to derived and adapted) solutions to an apparent problem may very well be designed by humans, or by human-like organisms (and we could add, via robotic processes as well).

And yes, you do understand the equivocations of “information” and “design” produced by IDists. Thus I do not know why you do not address adequately my point that IDists are not utilizing terms and understandings as real scientific hypotheses do.</quote>

But it's easier to fight a chimera of your own choosing than it is to respond properly to what I wrote.

<quote author="PvM">What ID and Dembski argue, erroneously, is that one can reliably infer design without any need to reference to a designer. Please explain why intelligent design is not a plausible cause, while ‘evolutionary mechanisms’ are when it comes to explaining the origin of let’s say the bacterial flagella?</quote>

It's "flagellum" in the singular.  And I never claimed that intelligent design is not a plausible cause in general for anything, I denied that the "design inference" is scientific.  Any chance that you'll begin to deal with what is written, and not your misrepresentations of what I have written?

<quote author="PvM">Certainly, rejecting one over the other a-priori seems to ignore ID’s claims in this area. Let’s look at panspermia, do you reject panspermia as being scientific? For what reason?</quote>

I don't reject it a priori.  Can you even comprehend what it is to respond to what is written, rather than to your false assumptions about us?  Here's what I wrote in one post:

<quote>Dembski still seems to believe that “design detection” is forbidden in science, and especially in biology. How absurd. Does he really think that we can’t detect “design” in dogs, that it would be anything but scientific to explain dogs without referring to the unconscious and conscious choices of dog breeders?

The real question is, how do we detect design in the sciences? Of course, as Camp notes, we care about the purposes and capabilities of designers. But we also might actually utilize “specified complexity” as one marker for design. “Specified” is the truly problematic word in that phrase, since we believe that specification has to shown, not just assumed. In SETI, apparent purpose guides one toward the idea of specification, whether this is from narrow channels being used, or attempts to encode data simply. Also, we do not generally accept that “specified” means “intelligently specified”, as Dembski does without cause or merit.

However, we might look for, well, I prefer to call it integrated complexity, as something that intelligence effects. Now the most crucial difference between science and the pseudoscience of ID is that we do not suppose that “intelligence” is anything but a “natural”, evolved, phenomenon. Intelligence is a question, not an answer, in science (yes, it’s a placeholding “answer” in science today, but even now it is scientifically parsed into various abilities, processes, and systems). We need to explain why it is as it is, why it resorts to pseudoscience, for example, why it often diverts into practically unproductive channels, and why the biological intelligences that we know cannot effect the extreme complexity of life (and if it ever does, I am guessing that it will be done with “artificial information processing systems).</quote>

Even if I can't expect you to have read that (it's on the thread "Robert Camp:  Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way that SETI is?), I should be able to expect that you wouldn't simply ascribe a position to me and then attack it.  And still you complain when we fault you over the matter of truthfulness.

What is more, I did indeed write that design may be a real (scientific is implied) hypothesis in one of the posts that you so badly ignored, and are here misrepresenting.  I wrote in my first response to you:

<quote>A real design hypothesis would say, humans design many things that involve rational solutions to a problem which appears to be addressed by these designs. Hence an apparent machine that has rational (as opposed to derived and adapted) solutions to an apparent problem may very well be designed by humans, or by human-like organisms (and we could add, via robotic processes as well).</quote>

Why can't you deal properly with what is written?

<quote author="PvM">

Glen wrote:

<quote>You could try dealing with what science is, and the necessity for present or future evidence to decide issues in science, that I brought up a number of times.</quote>

Much of this thread has been about dealing with what science is and how one establishes this. My position has been that what is and is not science is established not a-priori but rather a-posteriori.</quote>

Of course science is established a posteriori.  What you don't deal properly with is the fact that science has been established, and that we may make a priori judgments based on prior knowledge.  That you fail to understand the importance of this fact is part of your failure to deal responsibly with the lack of scientific terms in the "design inference".

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>Since you, no more than IDists, fail to respond to the criteria that decide what is science (not perfectly or exactly, but well enough to distinguish rank pseudoscience from science), what else am I to say?</quote>

Since I reject that there are clear cut a-priori criteria that define science, what else am I to say?</quote>

Did I write that there are clear-cut a priori criteria that define science?  Why do you think I wrote quite otherwise, and for what reason do you restate the matter in a manner that I carefully avoiding doing?

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>The fact is that, as per your previous practices, you have focused on the less substantive post of mine. And you have focused on the less detailed issues, preferring to attack me for “ad hominems” when you have consistently failed to address substance.</quote>

That’s of course one interpretation. If you have more substantial arguments then I suggest you focus on these.</quote>

I did, and you are trying to suggest that I did not.  It's shameful, but then most of your responses have been.

<quote author="PvM">ID’s religious motivations do not make ID scientifically vacuous,

<quote author="Glen">That’s what I said.</quote>

it’s the consequences of ID’s hypotheses which make it so.</quote>

<quote author="PvM">So again we seem to agree that ID’s consequences is what make ID vacuous. But as I argued, that is established a-posreriori. Do you agree with that? Or what else do you mean by ‘the consequences of ID’s hypotheses’?</quote>

What you appear not to understand is that science has been established, it has found that metaphysical conceptions of "chance", "regularity", and IDist ideas of "design" are useless in science.  We learn in science, so that we don't start science all over again at each pseudoscientific claim.  Hence we use our a posteriori learning to make a priori judgments, for most of us have learned what works in science.

<quote author="PvM">Let’s address some of Glen’s arguments and if Glen objects to me having ignored what he considers to be more substantial arguments, he can present them

<quote author="PvM">PvM: That’s simple: My definition of design is the same as Dembski’s: The set theoretic complement of chance and regularity.</quote>

<quote author="Glen">Glen: Now defend it using science and its standards, not ID metaphysics.

Has any actual scientist ever accepted such a definition, that is, has he accepted it as a scientist?</quote>

Notice that there are two arguments here. First that the definition of design has to be defended using science and its standards, not ID metaphysics. But how can we address ID’s claims when we a-priori reject ID’s metaphysics and restrict it to what Glen considers to be ‘science and its standards’?</quote>

Yes, this is your problem reduced to its most basic.  Procedures and standards have been established by reasonable people practicing in the law and in science to facilitate our investigation of issues and to resolve what can be considered to be proper evidence.  And you reject these in the case of one egregious pseudoscience whose stated purpose is to change science into something that could include it as well as, per Behe at least, astrology.

You're running in the post-modernist vein here, supposing that we don't have the proper intersubjective agreement and evidential correspondence to consider our a posteriori understanding of science as a powerful a priori guide to further scientific practice.  We are supposed to cease using our standards of evidence and argumentation to accommodate some pseudoscientists who tell us that we are wrong--and who clearly do have religious motivations for saying so.

<quote author="PvM">Certainly, Glen has provided no good reasons as to why we should use these standards when ID claims it has better standards.</quote>

Of course I haven't.  You claim to be a scientist (you haven't provided good reasons why I should believe this, of course), you ought to recognize how and why science has adopted the standards that it has.  I have argued some of these issues out on these forums, of course, but didn't suppose that I'd need to defend science from someone claiming to be a scientist.

<quote author="PvM">It’s this a-priori rejection of ID which is undefensible.</quote>

It is completely defensible, as shown by your rejection of science's standards as a proper goal for "ID science".  

Naturally I understand that science cannot be shown to be "correct" a priori.  I know how it can be criticized and "deconstructed", that the <i>signified</i> can be denied, that science can be understood as an elitist imposition, and that anyone who denies that evidence matters has no logical argument against him (not without some prior assumptions being granted, that is).

This is all a philosopher's game, though.  Science, like the courts, has experiential and intersubjective reasons for adopting the standards that it has, and philosophy's main role in science is simply to characterize science and to assist with the logic of science.

And if this post-modernist nonsense that we keep getting out of Pim is what was taught in the seminar, believe me, the seminar didn't help the cause of science.  I trust that MacNeill did rather better, even if some of the reading material leaves me with questions about the seminar.

<quote author="PvM">The demarcation problem has shown that historically, rejecting hypotheses as unscientific, have been flawed exactly because of ignoring these issues.</quote>

Did you just learn about the "demarcation problem"?  You seem to be using it like it has some great bearing on exposing pseudoscience.  For me it's old hat, and I have no illusions about science being separate from the rest of knowledge, experience, or judgment.  What do you think they teach in philosophy classes?

Historically, very many hypotheses have been rejected as unscientific on exactly the grounds of evidence and causality (in classical science).  Something like "design" has to have evidence in favor of it even before we consider it when "normal mechanisms" fail us.  This is bedrock in the judicial system and in science.  I'll believe that you're okay with giving up the criterion of evidence if you waive all evidence in your favor during a legal case made against you.

<quote author="PvM">The next logical fallacy is:</quote>

Oh, was there a first one?  Or are you just inclined to substitute ad hominem attacks for your lack of being able to read properly what is written, and your poorly-aquired notions about the "demarcation problem"?


<quote author="PvM">has any actual scientist ever accepted such a definition (as a scientist). That’s an ad hominem argument for the simple reason that even if no scientist has ever accepted this definition, the definition itself need not be flawed.</quote>

Great, boilerplate philosophy being thrown at me.  Here's what Wikipedia writes regarding appeals to authority:

<quote>On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority is likely to be true.</quote>

So you pitifully attack me for a supposed "ad hominem" when of course I claimed nothing like that the argument clinched the issue.  Another strawman attack from Pim, which is certainly a fallacy, one of a whole litany of fallacies used by Pim.

What you don't know is that philosophy is well beyond that sort of freshman discourse, and it recognizes (certainly the continental variety does) that actually science is an "intersubjective" set of practices.  So that in one sense, science is what scientists say that it is, that is to say, what it says it is in the ideal sense.  But unless you're Derrida or some such creature, we do recognize that collective judgments by educated people whose work is undergoing critical scrutiny, do have value.

It's as if you're claiming that the teacher who taught me about the fallacy of "argument from authority" shouldn't be believed in that matter because he was an authority.  Pathetic.

<quote author="PvM">Typically, one rejects arguments based on its merrits, not because of scientists accepting or rejecting it. In fact, there are historically examples of most scientists rejecting a hypothesis, later to be found quite scientific and supported by the data.</quote>

Another strawman fallacy from Pim.  Of course many hypotheses have been rejected, but we have yet to see where the very bases of classical science are questioned within the hypothesis, yet it prevailed eventually.    

Pim is trying to make out the fact that hypotheses have been wrongfully rejected as if it were the same thing as ID's rejections of science standards.  

<quote author="PvM">In addition, arguably, ID has indeed scientists who have accepted this definition. One could argue that they have not accepted the definition as scientists but that goes into motivations.</quote>

Maybe more to the point, have any of these IDiots gone ahead and accepted that definition in areas of science which are not related to origins?  See, it's not just a question of motivation, but also of consistency.  I'd like to see you question science standards consistently, rather than just where some politically powerful people have gotten you to make their anti-science arguments for them.

<quote author="PvM">Or perhaps Glen’s following argument

Glen wrote:

<quote>Once again your attempts to divorce design and agency are contradicted by the very person you are using as your authority for the supposed scientific hypothesis, the “design inference”.</quote>

This was in reference to van Till accepting the definition of design as the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance. In addition, van Till pointed out that Dembski appears to be self contradictory when it comes to separating design and agency. Nevertheless, Dembski himself was clear that design need not necessarily require agency, although he believes that there may be empirical reasons why the two frequently overlap.</quote>

He was not clear, as Wein pointed out.  And I fail to see any reasonable evidence or argument that design does not require agency.

<quote author="PvM"><quote author="Glen">What is more, “agent” only stands in for empirically known phenomena which have yet to be fully understood according to physics. “Directed contingency” is another at best philosophical term, and it does not convey anything about “intelligent agency” that science would be interested in.</quote>

Your suggestion that agent merely fills a position of our ignorance is well taken but how do you know that such a position can be filled by physics?</quote>

I don't, and I also don't appreciate yet another false implication from you.  But I fail to see how anything outside of physics could be known at some point.  The point is epistemology, what can we know?  Your IDist philosophy doesn't want to respect the boundaries of what we can know.

<quote author="PvM">And it is not agent but design which stands in place for this. It’s the ‘design inference’ not the ‘designer inference’ which has been proposed by Dembski.</quote>

Once again, Dembski's defense speaks.  I made an argument about how motion and agency are what really give us the linkage between "design" and intelligence in post #122122, and made similar mentions in at least one more post.  You, however, really do use ad hominem arguments, paying no heed to considered arguments, and using Dembski as a fiat authority.  Pitiful.


<quote author="PvM">One has to be careful not to confuse or conflate these concepts because they are quite different (and as such an achilles heel to ID).</quote>

I hardly conflate them, I simply use normal standards to note that "design" requires an antecedent.  You ought to be careful not to imply falsely that someone is confusing the two.

<quote author="PvM">
Glen wrote:

<quote>Science wants to explain everything using physics. Until then, it understands “agents” according to empirically known habits, customs, development, tradition, and evolution, among other things. Dembski’s “definition” is so much vacuous nonsense, which is used in order to convey the sense that intelligence is something other than physics and evolution (which is probably the furthest reduction we are permitted).</quote>

Since you have already accepted MN and thus rejected ID’s metaphysics, your conclusions are merely that ID fails MN.</quote>

OK, your false claims never stop.  I have never accepted MN, and although you wouldn't begin to understand my position you have no excuse for writing anything so completely unevidenced and blatantly false as that.  How very stupid and ridiculous your untruth "your conclusions are merely that ID fails MN."  

Did you write one non-trivial thing in your post that wasn't at least partly false?  It's appalling how many untrue things you write, and how utterly uncomprehending you are of the various takes and positions in science and in philosophy.

I never once brought up MN as an argument against ID, I always wrote of evidence, cause and effect (in the classical sciences--try once to get my nuances and caveats straight), and what are proper terms and concepts in science.  For you to turn around and accuse me of such a ridiculous stance not only shows that you don't bother with evidence for your charges, but that you don't understand the issues that are discussed in science and philosophy.

<quote author="PvM">But since ID does not recognize MN as being sufficient here, this argument should be rejected.</quote>

No, it should be rejected because it is a meaningless claim (unless a whole lot of the assumptions of science are first used to say what is "natural").  ID's rejection is neither here nor there, though I realize that you have fallen hard for the fallacy of argument from authority in your IDist-type "philosphy".

<quote author="PvM">Certainly, one cannot reject a-priori the concept that intelligence cannot be reduced to chance and regularity (or in your terms ‘physics and evolution’). In addition, since ID argues that we need not know “agents” to detect design, you cannot reject Dembski’s arguments as vacuous a-priori. This is shown a-posteriori, as I have argued.</quote>

The fallacy of authority is what pervades your many mistaken claims about science, and seem to be behind your many misrepresentations of what I and others have written.  You were arguing above that evidence is what matters, not authorities, when I hadn't committed the ad hominem fallacy, and here you are taking their egregious claims as the basis for evaluating their claims.  

<quote author="PvM">
Glenn wrote:

<quote>As such he again shows his metaphysical philosophy, and no scientific understanding whatsoever. That you continue to treat this nonsense as if it crosses, or even approaches, the threshold of science indicates that you have little conception of what science actually is, beyond your own area of specialization.</quote>

No real arguments beyond Dembski has no scientific udnerstanding, PvM has no scientific understanding…</quote>

That was a conclusion from your incapacity to understand what many scientists, and most philosophers, do understand about science.  Most people who were here, and perhaps are here still at times, understand just how wrong it is to argue from metaphysics to science, but still Pim blunders on showing just how badly he understands science and its bases.

You ignored the arguments, that is, the ones you didn't misrepresent.

<quote author="PvM"> And yet, no real arguments beyond the statement that ID’s metaphysics should be rejected. Why? Beyond stating that explanations should refer to physics, Glen provides no reasons that take into consideration ID’s position.</quote>

I shouldn't have to argue why ID's metaphyics should be rejected.  Good scientists know this already, so I was only arguing that ID comes from metaphysics.  

Can you even fathom the fact that metaphysics would need some basis to be accepted, not a reason to be rejected?  We do have philosophical reasons why it should be, beyond the lack of evidence for it, however mostly we just have to make our judgments about metaphysics and to reject it because of its lack of explanatory ability.

I bring up the illegitimacy of metaphysics, which anyone on our side should tacitly accept, and Pim acts just like an IDist, demanding that we come up with reasons not to accept unevidenced claims.

<quote author="PvM">
Glen wrote:

<quote>
Those of us with a philosophy and science background recognize the non-scientific nature of these sorts of claims immediately. You’re being “educated” by Dembski and others into their illegitimate manner of thought, and you’re judging us to be wrong based upon your IDist-inspired misapprehensions of what science is.</quote>

Again, no real arguments beyond the ‘ad hominem’. Let’s explore further and see what else Glen has to offer</quote>

Again the IDist-like quote-mining, as Pim focuses on an obvious conclusion and complains that there was no real argument there.  I can't figure out which is more lacking in decency, his false claims of ad hominems when a valid conclusion is reached, or his continual misrepresentations of what is written.  

<quote author="PvM">Ah yes, Glen’s fear that my position would lead to teaching ID not being unconstitutional in schools.

Glen wrote:

<quote>By the way, Pim, how do you propose that we should fight against the teaching of ID in biology?</quote>

As I already explained this question has two flaws. First of all, it presumes that if my position were to lead to the unfortunate circumstance that teaching of ID in schools is constitutional, something must be wrong with the argument or perhaps its consequence.</quote>

How very dull of you.  I know that you argue against teaching ID in the public schools (lower level), and that you accept IDist claims about science, at least with respect to judging ID.  I didn't say that ID shouldn't be taught (though it shouldn't), I asked how you propose that we fight ID teaching.  So again the strawman fallacy, as Pim reinforces the fact that he reads poorly, and mischaracterizes his opponents in almost every response he makes.

<quote>Second of all, it presumse that my position would lead to the teaching of ID being constitutional. As I have argued however, ID being scientifically vacuous, a posteriori, would be sufficient reason, combined with its clear religious motivations to reject it as constitutional.</quote>

You claimed as much, but you didn't demonstrate it.  I actually discussed the matter at some length, while again you ignore what was written and expect your claims to be accepted.  You seem not even to know what is required in an argument in the rare cases when you don't misrepresent what I've written.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>We argue that ID is not science, thus it not only coincides with religion, it in essence is (part of a) religion (more steps are in the argument, of course). By that abbreviated logical progression we have the constitution to rule against teaching ID.</quote>

Even if ID were a part of a religion, that does not make it necessarily non science. It’s the scientific vacuity (determined a-posteriori, I argue) and its religious foundations which make it unconstitutional.</quote>

And what did I write an inch or two away from the first quote-mine?

<quote>Nevertheless, there is a good argument that any science, regardless of its religious origins, should be allowed in science classes. Vacuous science is not obviously excepted in such an argument, hence there seems no legal reason for you to oppose teaching ID in schools.</quote>

You not only quoted out of context and repeated something that I had written, you avoided my point that vacuous science is not obviously excepted.  You so rarely answer anything in context, or as it is understood by your intellectual betters.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>You seem to think that ID is vacuous, but a legitimate scientific hypothesis nevertheless. So if we allow you and the IDists to redefine science to include, say, astrology, ID, and magic elves, what possible legal argument could you bring against this “science” being taught in the schools?</quote>

I think that ID proposed legitimate scientific hypotheses which have been found to be vacuous. So your argument: “So if we allow you…” is based on a false premise</quote>

OK, you don't understand the written word very well.  You're redefining science, along with the IDists, to include hypotheses that are not scientific hypotheses--since science does build upon a posteriori learning and does not begin anew each day.  

You didn't even address my reservations that "vacuous science" is not obviously prevented from being taught, and since you have so egregiously misrepresented almost everything you've responded to I can see how you fail to understand the problem of redefining science.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>(I should add that fundies have not been averse to invoking church/state separation whenever astrological notions appeared in schools.)</quote>

Irrelevant and needlessly flawed logically speaking.</quote>

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>Worse consequences would also be likely to follow, but that result would be bad enough.</quote>

Why should ‘bad or worse consequences’ be a valid reason to reject good arguments?</quote>

They aren't good arguments, and I cataloged a few reasons why they are not.  So again the strawman, the out-of-context misrepresentation, the lack of reading comprehension, that we find fascinating in Pim's defense of ID.

<quote author="PvM">Glenn wrote:

<quote>Why don’t you for once detail how ID is a scientific hypothesis, and how it’s consequences are all that can make it unscientific?</quote>

My argument is: One cannot reject ID’s claims as unscientific a priori,</quote>

Again, the usual claim of what cannot be done, when we have given you every reason why it can be done.  You have to deal with scientific matters if you are making a scientific hypothesis.  And if you go beyond, you need very good reasons to do so.

<quote author="PvM">certainly one cannot reject ID just because it fails to meet one’s concepts of science, especially since ID intends to extent the methodology of science.</quote>

Of course one can reject ID for it failiing to meet general conceptions of science.  ID's claims and intentions do not matter in this respect any more than JAD's intention to invoke God as "necessary" means that we need to consider God as perhaps being "necessary".

With you, a crackpot claim has to be considered on the grounds that it itself claims.  We do not fall for such nonsense, but clearly some people, even those on our side, do so.

<quote author="PvM">ID provides clear hypotheses of how one can infer design and the consequences of its claims are that ID remains scientifically vacuous as either a hypothesis and a metaphysics.</quote>

You have no reason to say that it fails as a metaphysic.  Metaphysics is beyond physics, and there is plenty of scope for fitting ID into metaphysics having an unknown cause and unknown goals.  This is why religion cannot be destroyed by science.

ID defines design so that it can be "inferred" where science would never infer it.  As such it does not follow the procedures of science.

You strike out on both scores, for you misunderstand science and philosophy quite badly, and posts by those informed by science and philosophy even worse.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>We’ve brought up the faulty terminology and the metaphysical ideas that IDists try to put into their “hypotheses”. That you haven’t answered our charges after all this time is a pretty good indication that you have no answers whatsoever, but will only continue to re-write the false conception of “science” that you share with the IDists.</quote>

All science relies on some level of metaphysics.</quote>

False claim.  You just have no conception of science at all, do you?  

One need only deal with phenomena, and the noumena that inform the phenomena to do science.  Kant pointed that out, but then you hardly know the philosophy of science, do you?

<quote author="PvM">In case of science, the metaphysics include methodological naturalism, which is a method to do science.</quote>

Of course not.  But I suppose you are ignorant enough not to know anything about phenomenological science, Kantian science, neo-Kantianism, or the claims made by positivists, such as Ayers.

<quote author="PvM">ID claims that MN is insufficient and that it needs to be replaced or extended to include the concept of design. Perhaps terminology is ‘faulty’ because it conflates terminology, and that is determined a-posteriori by examining its claims and consequences.</quote>

Perhaps "accident" and "necessity" as used by ID are mere logical constructs which have no basis in science.  In fact we make the case that they are, however I suspect that you would not follow it any better than you have understood the rest of the posts.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>It’s increasingly obvious that you have no substantive response to make to our statements.</quote>

Really?</quote>

Well gee, it's what all of us who actually do understand each other, and do not constantly misrepresent as you do, seem to think.  But that's right, you're not very good at respecting evidence.

<quote author="PvM">Glen wrote:

<quote>I can see why you’d want to ignore your astounding mistake about evolution being teleological, which even MacNeill disputes. So why would you want to acknowledge the points that I made, when you think to set up a false claim about what I had written and to respond to it?</quote>

I do not want to ignore this and your suggestion that I want to seems logically and evidentially flawed.</quote>

Does it?  This coming from the man who thinks a parenthetical statement is "illogical", and who makes false claims about ad hominem fallacies which in fact are his own staple in this argument?

You did ignore it.

<quote author="PvM">In fact, even MacNeill agrees, although the introduction to his course describes how Darwin was perceived to have displaced teleology. As far as I have been able to conclude from MacNeill, he accepts the findings by Ayala, Ruse, Nagel and Mayr about teleology in nature.</quote>

If so, he's damaging science, not helping it.

Oh that's right, you don't have any evidence for teleology in nature, do you?  You sort of ignored the issue again, then, didn't you?  Also you managed to appeal to one authority, while you illegitimately claimed that I made an ad hominem fallacy for mentioning the fact that scientists generally don't accept your claim.  Then again, what would you know about the philosophy of science?

<quote author="PvM">
Glen wrote:

<quote>And even though you are so very wrong about science that you supposed that evolution is teleological, you still think that you are able to dictate what science is, without, of course, addressing the points that we have brought up.</quote>

In fact I argue that I nor you are able to dictate what science is a-priori.</quote>

As I explained in my response to Torbjoern (written prior to reading your egregious post), we are in effect simply using a posteriori notions of science.  The problem is that you think we should question established science just because some religious apologists have said that we ought to.  That's the fallacy of the appeal to authority, the only "argument" that you have used so far to claim that ID has a scientific hypothesis.

<quote author="PvM">
Glen wrote:

<quote>And once again you the ignored issues I brought up of cause and effect that lie at the basis of science, preferring to mis-characterize what I had written and to simply respond to a strawman.</quote>

Really?… Even after this posting?</quote>

Of course.  You haven't begun to deal with causality as it is conceived in the classical science, you simply ignored my "classical" caveats and brought up irrelevant issues of cosmology.

<quote author="PvM">
Glen wrote:

<quote>It was MacNeill who praised Cordova’s dishonest “politeness”, yet it is you who appear to be peppering this thread with a repeat of Cordova’s tactics.</quote>

MacNeill did not praise Cordova’s dishonest “politeness” and to suggest that I pepper this thread with similar tactics is just once again needlessly ad hominem and insulting. Especially since you have not provided any examples that dishonesty is involved.</quote>
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 05 2006,13:44



In the year 2000...a very specific form of Carpal Tunnel will aflict the scroll-wheel finger....it will be called "Glen Davidson Disease"
Posted by: PvM on Sep. 05 2006,13:51

<quote author="Glen">So you accept the IDist conception of science, and you adopt their other tactics as well, being “polite” while writing blatantly untrue statements like this one: “Glen mostly asserted that those familiar with science would understand the problems with my arguments and realize that ID is vacuous, further suggesting that my position would make it impossible to reject the teaching of ID in schools on constitutional grounds.”</quote>

Nope, do not accept ID's concept of science. What I am saying is that if one wants to reject ID as unscientific one has to show why ID's arguments are flawed. If ID attacks the foundation of science, namely Methodological Naturalism, then arguing that ID is not science because it fails MN, is a flawed argument.

I additionally argued that 1) the fear that one could not reject ID from being taught in schools on constitutional grounds is unwarranted and that 2) such a fear should not be a reason to avoid making these arguments.

So far, Glen has failed to explain why these positions are flawed.

<quote>And even though you are so very wrong about science that you supposed that evolution is teleological, you still think that you are able to dictate what science is, without, of course, addressing the points that we have brought up.</quote>

I did not suppose that evolution is teleological, I showed that 1) scientists use (strong) teleological language when it comes to biology and evolution and 2) I showed how people like Mayr, Nagel, Ayala and Ruse have shown that teleological nature of biology and evolution as it deals with natural selection and function. Rather than ignore these issues, I argue that actually confronting them and/or embracing these concepts would take away a lot of ammunition from IDers without having to compromise science.

As far as cause and effect are concerned:

<quote>As you refuse to invoke normal cause and effect demands for any “scientific hypothesis”, you fall for the trick that Dembski is trying to pull, that “design” doesn’t need a plausible cause in order for the “design inference” to be treated as science (even if a vacuous one).</quote>

First of all, the 'normal cause and effect demands' are illusionary in the sense that such demands would fail to consider string theory or multiverses or even the Big Bang to be scientific. What ID and Dembski argue, erroneously, is that one can reliably infer design without any need to reference to a designer. Please explain why intelligent design is not a plausible cause, while 'evolutionary mechanisms' are  when it comes to explaining the origin of let's say the bacterial flagella? Certainly, rejecting one over the other a-priori seems to ignore ID's claims in this area. Let's look at panspermia, do you reject panspermia as being scientific? For what reason?

<quote author="Glen">You could try dealing with what science is, and the necessity for present or future evidence to decide issues in science, that I brought up a number of times.</quote>

Much of this thread has been about dealing with what science is and how one establishes this. My position has been that what is and is not science is established not a-priori but rather a-posteriori.


<quote author="Glen">Since you, no more than IDists, fail to respond to the criteria that decide what is science (not perfectly or exactly, but well enough to distinguish rank pseudoscience from science), what else am I to say?
</quote>

Since I reject that there are clear cut a-priori criteria that define science, what else am I to say?

<quote author="Glen">
The fact is that, as per your previous practices, you have focused on the less substantive post of mine. And you have focused on the less detailed issues, preferring to attack me for “ad hominems” when you have consistently failed to address substance.
</quote>

That's of course one interpretation. If you have more substantial arguments then I suggest you focus on these.


<quote>
   ID’s religious motivations do not make ID scientifically vacuous,
</quote>

That’s what I said.

<quote>
   it’s the consequences of ID’s hypotheses which make it so.
</quote>

So again we seem to agree that ID's consequences is what make ID vacuous. But as I argued, that is established a-posreriori. Do you agree with that? Or what else do you mean by 'the consequences of ID's hypotheses'?



Let's address some of Glen's arguments and if Glen objects to me having ignored what he considers to be more substantial arguments, he can present them

<quote>PvM: That’s simple: My definition of design is the same as Dembski’s: The set theoretic complement of chance and regularity.

Glen: Now defend it using science and its standards, not ID metaphysics.

Has any actual scientist ever accepted such a definition, that is, has he accepted it as a scientist? </quote>

Notice that there are two arguments here. First that the definition of design has to be defended using science and its standards, not ID metaphysics. But how can we address ID's claims when we a-priori reject ID's metaphysics and restrict it to what Glen considers to be 'science and its standards'? Certainly, Glen has provided no good reasons as to why we should use these standards when ID claims it has better standards. It's this a-priori rejection of ID which is undefensible. The demarcation problem has shown that historically, rejecting hypotheses as unscientific, have been flawed exactly because of ignoring these issues. The next logical fallacy is: has any actual scientist ever accepted such a definition (as a scientist). That's an ad hominem argument for the simple reason that even if no scientist has ever accepted this definition, the definition itself need not be flawed. Typically, one rejects arguments based on its merrits, not because of scientists accepting or rejecting it. In fact, there are historically examples of most scientists rejecting a hypothesis, later to be found quite scientific and supported by the data. In addition, arguably, ID has indeed scientists who have accepted this definition. One could argue that they have not accepted the definition as scientists but that goes into motivations.


Or perhaps Glen's following argument

<quote author="Glen">Once again your attempts to divorce design and agency are contradicted by the very person you are using as your authority for the supposed scientific hypothesis, the “design inference”.</quote>

This was in reference to van Till accepting the definition of design as the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance. In addition, van Till pointed out that Dembski appears to be self contradictory when it comes to separating design and agency. Nevertheless, Dembski himself was clear that design need not necessarily require agency, although he believes that there may be empirical reasons why the two frequently overlap.


<quote>What is more, “agent” only stands in for empirically known phenomena which have yet to be fully understood according to physics. “Directed contingency” is another at best philosophical term, and it does not convey anything about “intelligent agency” that science would be interested in.</quote>

Your suggestion that agent merely fills a position of our ignorance is well taken but how do you know that such a position can be filled by physics? And it is not agent but design which stands in place for this. It's the 'design inference' not the 'designer inference' which has been proposed by Dembski. One has to be careful not to confuse or conflate these concepts because they are quite different (and as such an achilles heel to ID).


<quote author="Glen">
Science wants to explain everything using physics. Until then, it understands “agents” according to empirically known habits, customs, development, tradition, and evolution, among other things. Dembski’s “definition” is so much vacuous nonsense, which is used in order to convey the sense that intelligence is something other than physics and evolution (which is probably the furthest reduction we are permitted).
</quote>

Since you have already accepted MN and thus rejected ID's metaphysics, your conclusions are merely that ID fails MN. But since ID does not recognize MN as being sufficient here, this argument should be rejected. Certainly, one cannot reject a-priori the concept that intelligence cannot be reduced to chance and regularity (or in your terms 'physics and evolution'). In addition, since ID argues that we need not know "agents" to detect design, you cannot reject Dembski's arguments as vacuous a-priori. This is shown a-posteriori, as I have argued.

<quote author="Glenn">
As such he again shows his metaphysical philosophy, and no scientific understanding whatsoever. That you continue to treat this nonsense as if it crosses, or even approaches, the threshold of science indicates that you have little conception of what science actually is, beyond your own area of specialization.
</quote>

No real arguments beyond Dembski has no scientific udnerstanding, PvM has no scientific understanding... And yet, no real arguments beyond the statement that ID's metaphysics should be rejected. Why? Beyond stating that explanations should refer to physics, Glen provides no reasons that take into consideration ID's position.


<quote author="Glen">Those of us with a philosophy and science background recognize the non-scientific nature of these sorts of claims immediately. You’re being “educated” by Dembski and others into their illegitimate manner of thought, and you’re judging us to be wrong based upon your IDist-inspired misapprehensions of what science is.
</quote>

Again, no real arguments beyond the 'ad hominem'.  Let's explore further and see what else Glen has to offer

Ah yes, Glen's fear that my position would lead to teaching ID not being unconstitutional in schools.

<quote author="Glen">By the way, Pim, how do you propose that we should fight against the teaching of ID in biology?</quote>

As I already explained this question has two flaws. First of all, it presumes that if my position were to lead to the unfortunate circumstance that teaching of ID in schools is constitutional, something must be wrong with the argument or perhaps its consequence. Second of all, it presumse that my position would lead to the teaching of ID being constitutional. As I have argued however, ID being scientifically vacuous, a posteriori, would be sufficient reason, combined with its clear religious motivations to reject it as constitutional.

<quote author="Glen">
We argue that ID is not science, thus it not only coincides with religion, it in essence is (part of a) religion (more steps are in the argument, of course). By that abbreviated logical progression we have the constitution to rule against teaching ID.</quote>

Even if ID were a part of a religion, that does not make it necessarily non science. It's the scientific vacuity (determined a-posteriori, I argue) and its religious foundations which make it unconstitutional.


<quote author="Glen">
You seem to think that ID is vacuous, but a legitimate scientific hypothesis nevertheless. So if we allow you and the IDists to redefine science to include, say, astrology, ID, and magic elves, what possible legal argument could you bring against this “science” being taught in the schools?
</quote>

I think that ID proposed legitimate scientific hypotheses which have been found to be vacuous. So your argument: "So if we allow you..." is based on a false premise

<quote author="Glen">
(I should add that fundies have not been averse to invoking church/state separation whenever astrological notions appeared in schools.)
</quote>

Irrelevant and needlessly flawed logically speaking.

<quote author="Glen">We actually have no instance in which a religion has given rise to a specific scientific hypothesis using non-trivial observations and understandings.
</quote>

In fact, I disagree. Both ID and certainly YEC's arguments about the age of the earth are scientific hypotheses. In case of YEC, science has been able to reject them as wrong. Or the hypothesis that "prayer helps healing", also refuted through science.


<quote author="Glen">Nevertheless, there is a good argument that any science, regardless of its religious origins, should be allowed in science classes. Vacuous science is not obviously excepted in such an argument, hence there seems no legal reason for you to oppose teaching ID in schools.
</quote>

Vacuous science (as determine a posteriori) combined with religious motivations would certainly lead us to reject ID as constitutional when it comes to teaching ID in schools. The same happened to YEC.

<quote author="Glen">
Religion masquerading as religion is what the courts rule against. This isn’t why ID isn’t science, by a long shot, but it is a reason why those of us who understand science tend to emphasize the fact that ID isn’t science in the least.
</quote>

I assume you mean "religion masquerading as science?". This is why ID can safely be rejected as being constitutional when it comes to teaching it in schools.

<quote author="Glen">Since you fail consistently to recognize what makes science into science, and how ID fails in a causal sense, in the evidentiary sense, and by illegitimately eliminating non-scientific “chance” and “regularity” to end up with a default to unknown “design”, perhaps it is best to point out what should be obvious even to one who doesn’t understand science as a whole: There likely is not a case against teaching ID in public schools if you and the IDists are permitted to redefine science.
</quote>

False premises, false conclusion.

<quote author="Glen">
Worse consequences would also be likely to follow, but that result would be bad enough.
</quote>

Why should 'bad or worse consequences' be a valid reason to reject good arguments?


<quote author="Glenn">Why don’t you for once detail how ID is a scientific hypothesis, and how it’s consequences are all that can make it unscientific?
</quote>

My argument is: One cannot reject ID's claims as unscientific a priori, certainly one cannot reject ID just because it fails to meet one's concepts of science, especially since ID intends to extent the methodology of science. ID provides clear hypotheses of how one can infer design and the consequences of its claims are that ID remains scientifically vacuous as either a hypothesis and a metaphysics.

<quote author="Glen">
We’ve brought up the faulty terminology and the metaphysical ideas that IDists try to put into their “hypotheses”. That you haven’t answered our charges after all this time is a pretty good indication that you have no answers whatsoever, but will only continue to re-write the false conception of “science” that you share with the IDists.
</quote>

All science relies on some level of metaphysics. In case of science, the metaphysics  include methodological naturalism, which is a method to do science. ID claims that MN is insufficient and that it needs to be replaced or extended to include the concept of design. Perhaps terminology is 'faulty' because it conflates terminology, and that is determined a-posteriori by examining its claims and consequences.

<quote author="Glen">
It’s increasingly obvious that you have no substantive response to make to our statements.</quote>

Really?

<quote author="Glen">I can see why you’d want to ignore your astounding mistake about evolution being teleological, which even MacNeill disputes. So why would you want to acknowledge the points that I made, when you think to set up a false claim about what I had written and to respond to it?</quote>

I do not want to ignore this and your suggestion that I want to seems logically and evidentially flawed. In fact, even MacNeill agrees, although the introduction to his course describes how Darwin was perceived to have displaced teleology. As far as I have been able to conclude from MacNeill, he accepts the findings by Ayala, Ruse, Nagel and Mayr about teleology in nature.

<quote author="Glen">
And even though you are so very wrong about science that you supposed that evolution is teleological, you still think that you are able to dictate what science is, without, of course, addressing the points that we have brought up.
</quote>

In fact I argue that I nor you are able to dictate what science is a-priori.

<quote author="Glen">
And once again you the ignored issues I brought up of cause and effect that lie at the basis of science, preferring to mis-characterize what I had written and to simply respond to a strawman.

</quote>

Really?... Even after this posting?

<quote author="Glen">It was MacNeill who praised Cordova’s dishonest “politeness”, yet it is you who appear to be peppering this thread with a repeat of Cordova’s tactics.</quote>

MacNeill did not praise Cordova's dishonest "politeness" and to suggest that I pepper this thread with similar tactics is just once again needlessly ad hominem and insulting. Especially since you have not provided any examples that dishonesty is involved.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Sep. 05 2006,15:56

pim tosses HIMSELF to the BW.

interesting.

egalitarian, i suppose.  I can't ever recall any PT contributor tossing themselves to the BW before.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 05 2006,17:31

Yesterday one of the clues on Jeopardy! was what creature uses a modified wristbone as a thumb to help it eat bamboo.

(Of course, that's a gimme to most anybody on PT or AtBC. :) )

Henry
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2006,05:57

So Pim shows his true colors, and banishes the truth to the Bathroom Wall. He lied egregiously and often. He is about the most stupid thing I've encountered outside of UD (and other creo forums), and I'm sure that his many many lies are as much a product of his gross ignorance and inability to read above high school level, as it is his contempt for truth.

Let's recount the greatest two lies to which I was responding, you know two out of the too-many-to-count. For the first, he wrote, "Glen mostly asserted that those familiar with science would understand the problems with my arguments and realize that ID is vacuous, further suggesting that my position would make it impossible to reject the teaching of ID in schools on constitutional grounds."

I reposted a long post in which I had discussed matters in detail. What does he do in response? He totally avoids the blatant lie above, responds to my ancillary point, misrepresents and lies a good deal more, and then at the end says that I haven't backed up my claim that he is dishonest. Again, his lack of intelligence is such that he may not be able to comprehend the simple case against this particular lie, however he compounds his lie by claiming that I had no evidence of his lie.

In the second lie, he is so stupid and dishonest, such a PimTard, that he said that I only oppose ID on the basis of "methodological naturalism", a stance that I have never once taken. I countered this in my post, his most blatant lie about myself (among many misrepresentations), so I guess he had to banish my post. What could he say? Could he apologize for lying repeatedly and often? Could he allow me to counter his lies on the forum in which he made them?

Certainly not. He's a fascist bully (screw Godwin's Law (yes, I know that technically it involves the term "Nazi")--it has no basis anyhow, though I understand how too many charges of "fascism" lose their punch--Pim deserves it, though), complete with gross ignorance, the desire to use power against truth, and an IDist intelligence.

In addition, he accused the bunch of us of only using ad hominems against ID, when it was clear even on that thread that many of us had made arguments against ID that only lacked appeal to Pim's limited intelligence, arguments that could not be countered by Pim except through his egregious distortions of truth and of the discourse that the lying fuckwad claims to desire.

Pim has been exposed to the world as what he is, a complete fraud whose defenses of ID are nearly the extent of his knowledge of the practice of science (granted, he probably can practice his specialty in recipe fashion). He may even be an IDist, who is feigning opposition while he lays the groundwork for when he can say, "Voila, ID isn't vacuous after all." Sure, he's probably too stupid even for such a simple feint, and probably thinks himself a defender of science, but I would say that someone as unintelligent and unlearned as Pim could be an IDist in the future, or even is now.

Throw Pim in with AFDave, DaveTard, Dembski, and the other cretins who banish the "discussions" in which they can't compete. His arrogance and ignorance match, much as they do in DaveTard's case, and he reacts with lies and censorship when his despicable actions are called what they are, dishonest and stupid.

He perverts justice as much as he perverts truth. And we have more doubts than ever about MacNeill's class.

Glen D
Posted by: Registered User on Sep. 06 2006,06:03

<i>The evidence is clear to me, Registered_User, Glen Davidson, and Torbjörn Larsson, at least, that you are not, and there is no point in me wasting my time banging my head on a brick wall.</i>

To be fair, I'd say that Pim is interesting in <i>hearing</i> the arguments as to why his statements about "intelligent design theory" are somewhat distressing.  But he doesn't appear interested in responding to those arguments beyond repeating over and over again that we don't really understand what he (or Dembski) is saying.

I have a theory. It doesn't invoke the supernatural.  It explains everything.  It says that everything we can't explain but which reminds some people of something that humans do can be explained by invoking mysterious alien beings.

My theory isn't scientific.  It's wanking metaphysical claptrap, almost as absurd as pure religion.

It's also indistinguishable from "ID theory" in its only coherent and nontrivial form.  

The incoherent and meaningless babble that Dembski occasionally poots forth is unscientific not because it is "religious" or metaphysical claptrap, but because it is incoherent and meaningless babble.  Simply because it takes a book chapter to wade through that meaningless babble does not impart the babble with sufficient substance to render it "scientific" or even "a posteriori unscientific".

Crap is crap, whether it's a two inch pile left by the neighbor's dog next to my oak tree or the giant mountain left by the Discovery Institute in America's schoolyards.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2006,06:03

<quote>Sigh… I have moved my response to Glen and his response to the bathroom wall.</quote>

Of course you can't have your many falsehoods exposed here, Pim.  Move this to the Bathroom Wall, too, certainly, and show how you can't abide honest statements in response to your misrepresentations and blatant falsehoods.

We have our own Tard now, the PimTard who can't understand, is astonishingly ignorant, and has no respect for the truth.

Your many falsehoods do belong in the toilet.  That you put my truths on the wall there only shows your contempt for honest discourse.

IF I can't find my response on the Bathroom Wall, I will reproduce it there or elsewhere on AtBC to show how disreputable your tactics and blatant untruths are.  You, sir, are an afront to science.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2006,06:03

[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

<quote>Sigh… I have moved my response to Glen and his response to the bathroom wall.</quote>

Of course you can't have your many falsehoods exposed here, Pim.  Move this to the Bathroom Wall, too, certainly, and show how you can't abide honest statements in response to your misrepresentations and blatant falsehoods.

We have our own Tard now, the PimTard who can't understand, is astonishingly ignorant, and has no respect for the truth.

Your many falsehoods do belong in the toilet.  That you put my truths on the wall there only shows your contempt for honest discourse.

IF I can't find my response on the Bathroom Wall, I will reproduce it there or elsewhere on AtBC to show how disreputable your tactics and blatant untruths are.  You, sir, are an afront to science.

Glen D
< http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2006,06:18

Yes, PimTard, make this your wall of shame, the place where your many lies are identified and labeled, the place where the words you cannot answer reside.

Mene mene, tekel upharsin.

Glen D
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 06 2006,06:21

<quote>To be fair, I’d say that Pim is interesting in hearing the arguments as to why his statements about “intelligent design theory” are somewhat distressing. But he doesn’t appear interested in responding to those arguments beyond repeating over and over again that we don’t really understand what he (or Dembski) is saying.</quote>

Well, by "hearing" I didn't mean just seeing them written on the screen as a jumble of letters.  In that sense, yes, he seems not only to welcome that but to demand it.  To what end, though, I really don't know at this point.  He says my lack of desire to beat my head against the wall runs "short of expectations".  Does he really <i>expect</i> to see an argument that sways him?  I doubt it.  Does he expect to see an argument that doesn't sway him?  Well, he's seen plenty of those, so what would be the point of more?  And if he really believes that there is no argument to be given, then I met his expectations and he can be happy and close the thread.
Posted by: Popper's ghost on Sep. 06 2006,06:26

[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

<quote>To be fair, I’d say that Pim is interesting in hearing the arguments as to why his statements about “intelligent design theory” are somewhat distressing. But he doesn’t appear interested in responding to those arguments beyond repeating over and over again that we don’t really understand what he (or Dembski) is saying.</quote>

Well, by "hearing" I didn't mean just seeing them written on the screen as a jumble of letters.  In that sense, yes, he seems not only to welcome that but to demand it.  To what end, though, I really don't know at this point.  He says my lack of desire to beat my head against the wall runs "short of expectations".  Does he really <i>expect</i> to see an argument that sways him?  I doubt it.  Does he expect to see an argument that doesn't sway him?  Well, he's seen plenty of those, so what would be the point of more?  And if he really believes that there is no argument to be given, then I met his expectations and he can be happy and close the thread.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 06 2006,06:47

Just one more comment about PimTard.

You can see where he's coming from in demanding "politeness". He's like all of the liars for Jesus, the creos and IDiots, who doesn't want the "impoliteness" that consists in holding him accountable for his many lies. Even though he likely is too stupid to understand just to what extent he lies, he really can't be making all of the false charges that he does without having some cognition that he is not truthful.

Dishonest people and dishonest forums enforce politeness. I'm not saying that pure jerks like DaveTard shouldn't be banned, but honest forums are very minimalist in their enforcement of "politeness". UD, on the other hand, needs "polite acceptance" of their lies in order to have a shot at perverting science, while the censorious Pim seems to have about the same reason for enforcing "civility"--which in his case means no mention of his dishonesty, idiocy, and ignorance.

He should just go off and become a champion of ID, since he supports the lies that lay the groundwork for the acceptance of ID. He could whine on UD about how mean PTers are, never answer honestly (like he has on the thread in question), and demand that pseudoscience be judged on the grounds that it chooses, never mind honest and legitimate grounds for judgment.

He's working for the IDiots. He might as well try to get paid for it.

Glen D
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 06 2006,07:13



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

I can't ever recall any PT contributor tossing themselves to the BW before.

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



I've done so before. It depends... if some digression needs a response, it is still a digression, and the comments should go here.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Sep. 06 2006,10:50

makes sense, in general.

I rather wonder if about 550 of the more than 600 posts in Pim's thread should have gone here.

I still say that thread was a trainwreck.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Sep. 06 2006,15:27

"In the year 2000...a very specific form of Carpal Tunnel will aflict the scroll-wheel finger....it will be called "Glen Davidson Disease" "

And it'll be all Darwin's fault!   ;)
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Sep. 10 2006,16:51

<quote>Do you mind if I interpret that as meaning “Lenny Flank is an arrogant idiot.” Since you’re not an authoritarian you shouldn’t care how I interpret your statements, right?</quote>

Please feel entirely free. Rest assured, Norm, that I lose not one second of sleep at night worrying what you think of me.  (shrug)

But thanks for once again reminding everyone so clearly that you and the fundies are indeed the same birds, under the feathers.
Posted by: normdoering on Sep. 10 2006,16:53

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
<quote>My, my, authoritarians certainly don’t like people having different interpretations, do they ….</quote>

Do you  mind if I interpret that as meaning "Lenny Flank is an arrogant idiot."  Since you're not an authoritarian you shouldn't care how I interpret your statements, right?
Posted by: Al Moritz on Sep. 11 2006,11:27

Mark Perakh wrote:

<quote>In his comment 128204 Mr. Moritz at least seems to be a little more cautious in his assertions, albeit still stating his views in a quite categorical manner. I certainly agree with Moritz that everybody who wants to form an opinion of Miller’s book, should read it rather than to only rely on reviews of that book. LIkewise, if anyone wants to know what exactly transpired in the discussion on Talk Reason, should go there and read all comments there rather than only the ones selected by Mr.Moritz. To my mind letters by Eterman and Gourant there debunk Pehnec’s letter in a rather convincing way, while Rossow’s reply to Moritz equally convincingly demonstrates the inadequacy of Moritz’s assertions. As Moritz wrote in his previous comment, “rounds and rounds it goes.” True. Therefore any further discussion of Moritz vs. Rossow exchange, instead of a direct discussion of Rossow’s essay and Miller’s book, will be moved to the Bathroom Wall.</quote>

Erm, reading this reply raises the question as to who is "stating his views in a quite categorical manner" here? (smile)

<quote>I certainly agree with Moritz that everybody who wants to form an opinion of Miller’s book, should read it rather than to only rely on reviews of that book. </quote>

Good.
Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on Sep. 11 2006,14:27

<quote>I’m practically wiping spittle off my screen here</quote>

Yes, we can tell.

Smoke a bowl and relax, dude, before you pop an artery or something.
Posted by: normdoering on Sep. 11 2006,16:10

Raging Bee wrote:

<quote><quote>Part of the scientific method is the use of skeptical investigation and critical thinking. Do you see people applying those things to their religious beliefs?</quote>

Actually, norm, I do: </quote>

To the extent that you know what the tools of skepticism and critical thinking are you perhaps see that. But, the problem is, as is evidenced to me from your posts here on Panda's thumb, you're not working with a full arsenal of skeptical and critical tools. You got short changed by our educational system.

<quote>...many Christians and Pagans have, over time, explicitly changed their opinions, and their interpretations of their holy texts or other received wisdom, to accomodate new knowledge and experiences. </quote>

That doesn't mean they're working with a full arsenal of skeptical tools. In fact, the way you've stated it, it's not even evidence they are using <b>any</b> skeptical tools.

<quote>Furthermore, those persons of faith whom I have encountered show, in general, no less capacity to think critically or assimilate new information than the atheists I’ve encountered. </quote>

Let me point out that in observing your thinking here that you in fact do demonstrate a reduced capacity for critical thinking. You seem to depend more on popular opinion and rumor than investigation. You repeat popular opinions that are demonstratably Christian apologetics not facts.

<quote>(The fact that Chiefly could post so many links to the publications of established Christian churches on this subject, right here on PT, and get no acknowledgement from you, speaks volumes about your own ability to think critically.)</quote>

When did he do that?

But no matter, I've read enough Christian apologetics to see the patterns and I expect to only find lip service paid to things like science and critical thinking. Looking for more would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack -- so don't give me a mountain of lists, give me direct examples quoted in your post, not paraphrased and interpreted in the vague off the mark way you do.

<quote>...
re Harris: yes, he said that in the Salon interview. Then he contradicted himself in the very next sentence, without acknowledging there was a contradiction. Harris is a shameless bigot, twisting what little he knows of religion to suit his own prejudices.</quote>

<b>Why did you lie? </b>

I just read the Salon interview and there is no such example.

<quote>... you’re actually citing a WorldNutDaily poll as evidence to support your opinions?</quote>

It was an ABC poll, WorldNutDaily only wrote an article about it. They can skew the interpretation, but only ABC can skew the data. This is a pretty good example of screwed up your thinking is. It was also not the only one I sited. I also called it skewed. It does represent a high end possibility.

I also gave a BBC poll.

They were simply the first two links I found -- so they  are generally random samplings of polls.

<quote>Then you’re saying the rest of us “don’t know the Bible?”</quote>

Do you claim to know the Bible? Do you read it?

Why don't you come out  and say "Hey I know the Bible, it says this --" instead of complaining about the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know the Bible?

<quote>“You do not know the Bible” is a standard refrain of fundies, wingnuts and religious simpletons, and your repeated use of it, again, speaks volumes about your own mind-set and where it comes from.)</quote>

Yea, it comes from someone who has read that book and then sees there are a #### of a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about when speak about the Bible -- relying on popular opinion and rumor rather than on seeing for themselves what is in that book. I guess that is a trait I share with fundies as opposed to people who get their knowledge from popular opinion and preachers and take it as fact.
Posted by: normdoering on Sep. 13 2006,16:59

Kevin wrote:
<quote>...except when our so called “friends” actively help the worst reactionary elements in our society gain power and vote, yes, vote, against those forces which would have NOT invaded IRAQ or given the green light for corporations to destroy our environment.</quote>

Ummm... Do you know something about Miller that I don't? Did he ever say anything about politics, stem cells, Iraq, or whether the ten commandments could be posted in a court house?
Posted by: Kevin from nyc on Sep. 13 2006,16:59

"Fight with our enemies. Not with our friends."

except when our so called "friends" actively help the worst reactionary elements in our society gain power and vote, yes, vote, against those forces which would have NOT invaded IRAQ or given the green light for corporations to destroy our environment.
Posted by: normdoering on Sep. 13 2006,17:00

alienward wrote:
<quote>Although Miller is saying evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of a god, he is saying religious claims of a god using special creation are “ridiculous”, right?</quote>

I think all you can do with that is push Miller into admitting that God is probably not omniscient. It goes against traditional concepts of God, but not a broader definition of the term.

We use genetic algorithms to find things we can't clearly imagine existing in vast search spaces. If God set up a randomizing, quantum, engine in the universe whose results he can't predict, then he probably isn't omniscient.
Posted by: mcc on Sep. 13 2006,21:30

Blarg.

I got involved in the latest Ongoing Ken Miller Thing thread much more than I intended to. I hope I did not step out of line.
Posted by: normdoering on Sep. 14 2006,16:39

Katarina wrote:
<quote>I did not say I “know” anything. Just that I believe, and that I am entitled to that belief, ...</quote>

Well, the constitution does give us "Freedom of Conscience," but we still find it prudent to put crazy people into institutions where they can't harm themselves or others.

<quote>... I have no reason other than your say-so to accept the scary but inevitable truth that the two are incompatible.</quote>

I find that statement astonishing. The evidence against Biblical belief systems seems overwhelming. How can anyone miss it?

<quote>If you wish to put questions to me, that is another matter. But if you are baiting me so you can puff up your chest and bang on it a few times, I will only nibble. And that is just what you are doing.</quote>

That's what you think.

<quote>If you want to have further discussions with me, start the “After the Bar Closes” thread and I will try to address any sincere questions, if you promise they are sincere. I’ll just take your word for it.</quote>

No. I'm not going to start anything with you. You've accused me of insulting you. If you've got something to say to me privately, you  can use my email:

normdoer -at- yahoo.com

But be warned -- I will not only <b>not respect</b> your feelings, I will <b>not even comprehend them</b>. I do not understand what an insult is to you. I have no religious feelings to compare yours too.

So, don't start anything or continue this unless you can be objective.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2006,06:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
jujuquisp



Posts: 28
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,18:04  
God, DaveTard is making me sick.  The crap he posts at UD is unbelievable.  How can anyone be so stupid and yet so righteous?  I can't take his garbage anymore.  It is actually making me physically angry to see someone act so childish at that blog, yet that person is practically worshipped by the masses of bleating sheep there.  The anger and loss of faith in humanity is intruding in my daily life.  Maybe I need UD rehab and DaveTard Detox.  Any suggestions for me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 59
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,18:57  
Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 14 2006,17:04)
God, DaveTard is making me sick.  The crap he posts at UD is unbelievable.  How can anyone be so stupid and yet so righteous?  I can't take his garbage anymore.  It is actually making me physically angry to see someone act so childish at that blog, yet that person is practically worshipped by the masses of bleating sheep there.  The anger and loss of faith in humanity is intruding in my daily life.  Maybe I need UD rehab and DaveTard Detox.  Any suggestions for me?

i know what you are saying.
I ended up starting a blog to rant into.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
jujuquisp



Posts: 28
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,20:20  
MORPHODYKE obviously has no clue what the #### she is talking about.  Does she even know what the term "fuzzy math" refers to?  It has nothing to do with the math classroom.  ####, UD is just driving me nuts.  Wallow in your ignorance, DaveTard, Morphodyke, and Dumbski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 43
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,01:52  
Quote
It is actually making me physically angry to see someone act so childish at that blog...


Quote
MORPHODYKE obviously has no clue what the #### she is talking about.  Does she even know what the term "fuzzy math" refers to?  It has nothing to do with the math classroom.  ####, UD is just driving me nuts.  Wallow in your ignorance, DaveTard, Morphodyke, and Dumbski.


Cura te ipsum

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
jujuquisp



Posts: 28
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,04:01  
You are really a big jerk, Robert O'Brien.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
guthrie



Posts: 268
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,06:55  
I have yet to see him make a useful or even entertaining contribution, so ignore him.  Best thing to do on the internet.  As for yourself, Juju, you need to go on holiday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ichthyic



Posts: 1737
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,06:56  
pay RO no mind.  He thinks he's witty, for some reason.

funny thing is, in the very few instances where he is qualified to speak, he sometimes has interesting things to say.

those times are so few and far between, though, that he's been permanently labeled a troll on several sites now, and is apparently trying to see if he can achieve the same result here.

again, RO, give up the quips, you have NO talent for it.

really.

Quote
Looks like there's some controversy about IDC.  This must mean that it is about to collapse.


doesn't something have to build up before it can actually collapse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 1494
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,10:57  
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 15 2006,05:55)
I have yet to see him make a useful or even entertaining contribution, so ignore him.  Best thing to do on the internet.  

Be nice to Robert, he's got that award named after him, how many of us can claim that?

--------------
Undetectable in normal everyday use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 43
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,11:53  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 15 2006,09:57)
Be nice to Robert, he's got that award named after him, how many of us can claim that?

Ardo:

Could you refresh my memory as to the nature of the award? The only thing I can recall is that the awarder looked as if he might be eligible for an award himself for putting away jelly doughnuts.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Shalini, BBWAD on Sep. 15 2006,17:20

When they start spitting excrement through their mouths, that's when you know that ID is throughly dead.

Oh, well....
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 18 2006,16:28

Improper use of apostrophes is a pet peeve of mine. I think it makes people look stupid. It is wrong of me, however, to complain about it on PT/AtBC if even goddam journalists can't get it right.

MSNBC:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amnesty International has raised doubts about the fairness of the men's' trials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897753/ >
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,13:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 1567
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,15:55  
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 23 2006,14:45)
I thought it might be nice to dress up as a crusader.

So Robert, what WAS the deal with that whole indented-with-a-period-after-it business?

Are you on PZ's permanent disemvowelling list now, hopefully?

--------------
Undetectable in normal everyday use.
    IP: [ ]    Report this post to a moderator
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 60
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,16:24  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,14:55)
So Robert, what WAS the deal with that whole indented-with-a-period-after-it business?

Are you on PZ's permanent disemvowelling list now, hopefully?

I was testing the limitations of the "disemvoweling" utility. Anyway, I am not done causing ol' Peezee dyspepsia. I hope Vargas saw that "lnk" I had to an anonymous proxy; I would love to sit back and watch as he and the others wreak havoc on Asinus Asinum Fricat.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
  Report this post to a moderator
Ichthyic



Posts: 1750
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,16:40  
Quote
I am not done causing ol' Peezee dyspepsia.


LOL

you tremendously overinflate your impact, as all practicing cranks often do.
    IP: [ ]    Report this post to a moderator
pzmyers



Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,16:42  
How...strange. So the fact that I lift a finger to slap down fools on Pharyngula is causing me "dyspepsia" and "wreaking havoc"?

O'Brien really is the dumbest rube on the net. I have a suggestion: tape a sign to your butt that says "KICK ME", kneel down on a sidewalk, and waggle it in the air. Then you can gloat and feel vindicated even as your bruised and broken tailbone throbs.
    IP: [  ]    Report this post to a moderator
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 60
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,16:59  
Quote (pzmyers @ Sep. 23 2006,15:42)
How...strange. So the fact that I lift a finger to slap down fools on Pharyngula is causing me "dyspepsia" and "wreaking havoc"?

O'Brien really is the dumbest rube on the net. I have a suggestion: tape a sign to your butt that says "KICK ME", kneel down on a sidewalk, and waggle it in the air. Then you can gloat and feel vindicated even as your bruised and broken tailbone throbs.

I am pretty sure it irks you, Peezee. In any event, I am amused that someone who studied the least intellectually-demanding science and whose publications I can count on two hands calls me "the dumbest rube on the net." Your opinion and a dime would still leave me empty-handed at the gumball machine.

Those who can do. Those who can't blog about it from Morris

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
      IP: [ ]    Report this post to a moderator
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 1567
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,17:05  
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 23 2006,15:59)
Quote (pzmyers @ Sep. 23 2006,15:42)
How...strange. So the fact that I lift a finger to slap down fools on Pharyngula is causing me "dyspepsia" and "wreaking havoc"?

O'Brien really is the dumbest rube on the net. I have a suggestion: tape a sign to your butt that says "KICK ME", kneel down on a sidewalk, and waggle it in the air. Then you can gloat and feel vindicated even as your bruised and broken tailbone throbs.

I am pretty sure it irks you, Peezee. In any event, I am amused that someone who studied the least intellectually-demanding science and whose publications I can count on two hands calls me "the dumbest rube on the net." Your opinion and a dime would still leave me empty-handed at the gumball machine.

Those who can do. Those who can't blog about it from Morris

Would you care to share your expertise and qualifications? I'm sure they're far more relevant.

--------------
Undetectable in normal everyday use.
    IP: [     Report this post to a moderator
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 60
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,17:29  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,16:05)
Would you care to share your expertise and qualifications? I'm sure they're far more relevant.

1. graduate student, probability & statistics

2. instructor of record, introductory statistics

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
      IP: [    Report this post to a moderator
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 1567
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,17:38  
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 23 2006,16:29)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,16:05)
Would you care to share your expertise and qualifications? I'm sure they're far more relevant.

1. graduate student, probability & statistics

2. instructor of record, introductory statistics

I'm impressed. Your qualifications to pass judgement on evolutionary biology and Myers' abilities as a biologist are obviously unquestionable.

Care to tell us how many articles you've published, as well, since you raised that point? Both your publications on biology and statistics, please.

--------------
Undetectable in normal everyday use.
    IP: [  ]    Report this post to a moderator
skeptic



Posts: 247
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:58  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,12:50)
But if you go by actual reality-based evidence, Judeo-Christian tradition isn't 6,000 years old.

I'm just estimating based upon the assumption that there was oral tradition preceding the written version that theoretically originated with Aaron or something to that effect.  Honestly I have no idea of an accurate dating but it sure ruins the brevity of a clever quip to deconstruct it so.  HA HA
    IP: [  ]    Report this post to a moderator
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 1567
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,19:01  
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 23 2006,17:58)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,12:50)
But if you go by actual reality-based evidence, Judeo-Christian tradition isn't 6,000 years old.

I'm just estimating based upon the assumption that there was oral tradition preceding the written version that theoretically originated with Aaron or something to that effect.  Honestly I have no idea of an accurate dating but it sure ruins the brevity of a clever quip to deconstruct it so.  HA HA

Yeah, I know, there's an old saying "humor is like a frog, you can dissect it, but it tends to die in the process".

--------------
Undetectable in normal everyday use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 01 2006,09:59

[QUOTE][quote=Arden Chatfield,Oct. 01 2006,03:25][/quote]
[quote]Small problem, though -- a) this is not PT, and b) Heddle has spent plenty of time at PT anyway. Whoops. Try paying better attention next time.[/quote]

A) This messageboard is affiliated with PT and is full of PT regulars.

B) David Heddle is quite intelligent and I am sure he can see through your faux friendliness.

[quote]On the upside, though, at least you're wise enough not to dispute my characterization of Heddle as smarter than you and GoP.[/quote]

Chattie, you are an ignorable hanger-on and I am not solicitous of your estimation of my intelligence[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [quote=Robert O'Brien,Sep. 30 2006,13:11]
      [quote=Arden Chatfield,Sep. 27 2006,16:56]Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.[/quote]

If you exhumed your head from your nethers you might notice that David Heddle does not particularly care for PT.[/quote]

It's nice that your flair for the obvious is still sharp, Robert. Bravo.

Small problem, though -- a) this is not PT, and b) Heddle has spent plenty of time at PT anyway. Whoops. Try paying better attention next time.

On the upside, though, at least you're wise enough not to dispute my characterization of Heddle as smarter than you and GoP.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [quote=Arden Chatfield,Oct. 01 2006,03:25]
  [quote]Small problem, though -- a) this is not PT, and b) Heddle has spent plenty of time at PT anyway. Whoops. Try paying better attention next time.[/quote]

A) This messageboard is affiliated with PT and is full of PT regulars[/quote]

So '