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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FTK Research Thread

Pages: (25) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:51    Quote (Louis @ June 28 2007,15:47) Arden, I'd say "Argumentum ad inability to conceive of time management skills greater than one's own and project like a motherfucker" is more accurate, but 'tis a tad wordy. Louis Get Robert O'Brien to put that in Latin for you. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:53    I can do the Latin myself. No need to involve the mentally deficient. Louis -------------- Bye.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:47    Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34) I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.   Next question will be:  What is that evidence?   No, MY next question would be: why should anyone give two hoots in Hades WHAT the opinion on the matter of an uneducated suburban housewife is? I, uh, don't expect you to actually answer that question. Or any other.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:54    Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:03) Or, better yet, maybe I should join Icky in greener pastures. (yawn)  Again? Bye.  (shrug)  Don't let the door hit your holy little ass on the way out.  Again. How many times do you, uh, plan on stomping out all in a huff, FTK? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:56    Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:59) Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog. You could always ban him. Ya know, like you've been banned here. (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,18:02    Quote (Louis @ June 28 2007,15:47) Arden, I'd say "Argumentum ad inability to conceive of time management skills greater than one's own and project like a motherfucker" is more accurate, but 'tis a tad wordy. Louis Indeed. Why is it that the fundies ALWAYS manage to find the time to POST their idiotic drivel, but somehow NEVER seem to have the time to DEFEND any of it . . . . . ? But then, since FTK doesn't actually understand any of it anyway, the only "response" she will offer is "read Wally's book" (which, of course, she ALSO doesn't understand anyway). Any serious discussion of science with FTK is an utter waste of time.  It's like discussing quantum physics with your goldfish (except that the goldfish at least has the good sense to shut up and not talk about things it doesn't understand and doesn't know anything about). -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,08:52    Just to make sure that everyone understands the implications of this alleged answer to my question about the icefish.   Quote Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation. Ftk = microev....  TE's = loony speculation. fish are fish...microev. fish can adapt...microev. fish evolves into a one legged jackrabbit...looney speculation.   [please, oh please be aware that the last line in this post was sarcasm.  Yes, I realize that fish and rabbits are not on the same branch of the evo tree...they are merely long, long lost cousins.] Note that she apparently believes that fish = fish, and that the other Antarctic fish are all the same, just with different "adaptations". In her perspective, speciation is just microevolution. She is a closet baraminologist, and probably believes in front-loading as well. Note further that she apparently will only accept macroevolution if one "kind" of animal changes into another kind, preferably right in front of her very eyes and certainly in her lifetime. Speciation is not good enough. Based on the other parts of her comment, I don't believe for a minute that she is being sarcastic with that last statement. She thinks that proof of evolution requires direct observation of drastic changes in organisms. Clearly, by setting up an impossible proof, she will never be convinced by lesser evidence. She requires a miracle, which is a common enough occurrence in the science book she prefers. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:14    FtK makes the claim that a series of posts that she made in the Walt Brown thread are analogous to other series of posts that Lenny Flank has posted elsewhere. Let's look at the content: Quote [Post 1] Lenny is a weirdo. [Post 2] I'm practicing posting Lenny style. [Post 3] I wonder how many separate posts in a row I could accumulate before Steve would ban me. [Post 4] Evolution is dead, dead, dead. Bwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. [Post 5] Lenny is the antichrist... [Post 6] I don't like Lenny's avitar. [Post 7] Lenny the loser makes me barf. [Post 8] Mimicking Lenny makes me feel like I'm a 3rd grader.  Creepy. I'm going to invoke the following rule: Quote Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment. FtK can back up the claim that Lenny has made such a series of posts, including the same lack of content and reliance upon simple insult for the same number of posts, or retract the claim. I will determine how well convincing a proposed demonstration is. FtK has one week to accomplish one or the other. Back in your court, FtK. If there is no response doing one or the other by July 6th, I'll consider that a default. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:18    Are you freaking serious, Wes?  He does it all the time. I most certainly will not waste my time with this crap - and, you call yourself a moderator???! Ian, wherever you are, maybe we can find another forum to discuss whatever you want to talk about?? This is BS... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:20    In a week, then, you will be out of here. That's what you've wanted from the outset, isn't it? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:24    Retraction would seem to be an option. Humility maketh the (wo)man and all that. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:25    No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.  I merely pointed out what a jerk Lenny was being.  Sheesh!!!  What the heck is wrong with you Elsberry?  Why should I answer anything with your minions popping in and treating me like complete crap after every post? If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up! Ian, it looks like I'm on my way out, so just suggest somewhere else to go, or you can visit my blog. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:29    Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:18) Are you freaking serious, Wes?  He does it all the time. I most certainly will not waste my time with this crap - and, you call yourself a moderator???! Ian, wherever you are, maybe we can find another forum to discuss whatever you want to talk about?? This is BS... No it is not. You made a claim and have been asked to provide evidence or a retraction. If it is true that Lenny "does that all the time" it will be easy to provide evidence. If you find it difficult to find evidence to back up your claim then consider the possibility that you "may" be wrong. BTW. I believe Wes is serious. To reiterate: If you are correct, you will find it very easy to back-up your claim. If it is difficult to back-up your claim, you are probably wrong.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:29    FTK, It's dead simple. You find a series of 8 Lenny posts which contain nothing but insults and contain no on topic comments, and your claim is supported. Granted, it's a harsher and more precise than I would have done, but it has a certain hilariously poetic justice, especially because you are big on claims and complaints and very very very VERY small on actual discussion. Lenny does similar things perhaps, but does he do the same thing. Whilst your supporting or retracting your claim about Lenny, how about you support your claim about unsupported suppositions in biology textbooks? I'd love to see these unsupported assumptions so that I can write to the textbooks authors and editiors. I am very keen on accurate science education and the last thing we need is poor texts undermining hard work. Louis -------------- Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:30    Quote If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up! I see three posts in a row by Lenny earlier. You opened the door to what the "next" question would be; Lenny offered his own. You brought up leaving this forum; Lenny noted that you've done it before. You brought up posting policy at your blog; Lenny compared that to what demonstrably has happened here. I'm not seeing the analogy to your indicated series of posts. Make your argument if you are going to. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:37    Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:25) No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.  I merely pointed out what a jerk Lenny was being.  Sheesh!!!  What the heck is wrong with you Elsberry?  Why should I answer anything with your minions popping in and treating me like complete crap after every post? If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up! Ian, it looks like I'm on my way out, so just suggest somewhere else to go, or you can visit my blog. Oh FGS, stop playing the victim. If you are "on your way out" it is through your own choices. You only have to either provide evidence for a claim you made or retract it. That is no-way certain banning. If you get banned here because of this, it is through your own choice to neither provide evidence or an apology. Your choice. You will not be a marter.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:38    Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point. Elsberry...you are a complete jerk. Bye. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:40    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,10:30)   Quote If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up! Make your argument if you are going to. Wes, please be patient. It should be clear by now that FtK is a very busy person, and just doesn't have the time to support her blathering with evidence address all of these questions. Let her go to her kid's soccer game, and host a party for 900 people, and then maybe she can find the time to read the pertinent literature link to Walt Brown. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:41    Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38) Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point. Elsberry...you are a complete jerk. Bye. Is parody a defense? Calling folks a jerk to their face isn't too nice, mind. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:45    Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38) Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point. Wow! I'll have to remember that! Next time I make an unsupportable claim I pull out of my butt and get called on it, I'll just reply "I WAS MAKING A POINT!", and that should make it all better. I had no idea I could use that! Think I'll try it in my next article...   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:51    Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,10:41)   Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38) Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point. Elsberry...you are a complete jerk. Bye. Is parody a defense? Calling folks a jerk to their face isn't too nice, mind. Especially when you consider the tolerance shown here. Ftk, as a controling point, try and parody an "evilutionist" on an ID site. Pretend that you suport evolution on UD, argue pro-evo arguments there. See how long it takes to get banned. BTW. You still aint banned here and wont be if you post evidence to back-up your claim. Can you really not see the difference?

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:53    Nicely done, Wes. FtK - time to put up or shut up. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:54    Or you could retract the claim that what you did and what Lenny did was identical in execution and motivation. Louis -------------- Bye.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:54    Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38) Bye. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:57    BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Louis -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:11    I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:19    Quote Can you really not see the difference? Of course she can't.  She's whined and complained about the incivility of everyone here from the beginning.  She also has complained about our complete and utter lack of desire to talk about science from the beginning. Considering this Bizarro World of hers, it's a wonder she didn't somehow ban herself and cry foul months ago. I will, of course, not back up any of these claims because you all are homos.  Unless you threaten to ban me, Wes.  Then I will certainly cut and paste several of Ftk's comments in order to support my claim. Cut and paste is hard.  Maybe I'll just have you look at just about everyone's sigs instead. An actual question (number 52?) for you to ignore: Is it now beyond your abilities to cut and paste as well as to read, think, or speak for yourself?  Perhaps we should've sent you a feeding tube instead of a biology textbook? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:27    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11) I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up. While I do agree that occasionally Lenny is obnoxious, I don;t think that Wes is out of line at all.  The point, it should be remembered, is not "is Lenny obnoxious" but rather "is Ftk correct"? That is the one thing that Ftk has possibly never been.  It is also the one thing that she has never acknowledged (not unusual for creationists).  However, when combined with her inability to even pretend to converse with people, this is the largest detriment to this thread (and others).  AFDave and Paley at least advanced arguments (stupid ones, but at least new info was put forth occasionally); Ftk does not do this. If she can't see the difference between her behavior and Lenny's (and the qualitative difference is high), she is one of the biggest wastes of bandwidth ever.  She should face that and be forced to acknowledge it. Edited for better sentence structure, yikes. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:44    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11) I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up. In defence of Lenny. He has been fighting this battle for over 20 years. After only about 4, I am getting a tad bored with the same claims being made by creationists (even though I once believed them) being made years after they got refuted. The "whack'a'mole" analogy is pretty right-on. From experience: Some creationists are probably being honest in finding those claims as convincing. However, after a few posts if they stil claim those refutations of evolution are relevant, they have not followed any links at all.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:53    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,11:44) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11) I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up. In defence of Lenny. He has been fighting this battle for over 20 years. After only about 4, I am getting a tad bored with the same claims being made by creationists (even though I once believed them) being made years after they got refuted. The "whack'a'mole" analogy is pretty right-on. From experience: Some creationists are probably being honest in finding those claims as convincing. However, after a few posts if they stil claim those refutations of evolution are relevant, they have not followed any links at all. Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that). Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Pages: (25) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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