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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 117 118 119 120 121 [122] 123 124 125 126 127 ... >

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,07:37    Great post Wes. It made me wonder about something.  Besides the small cadre of people like Dembski, Luskin, and a few others at the DI, have we seen anything from people like Behe or Gonzalez lately?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:03    I'm famous.  Not as famous as Wes, but more famous than AC I would say (yeah, I'm the "kicker")... http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195 Quote Over at antievolution.org Wesley Elsberry tries to write an obituary for ID. Arden Chatfield faithfully rewords and repeats his master’s hallucination in the next comment. The kicker is a cat named GCT who asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately? No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors. What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative. As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It’s all political at this point and unfortunately for Wesley and his ilk he must convince a majority of voters that it’s his way or the highway. He’s failed utterly at that task and now we simply wait for the purposely slow moving wheels of the federal judiciary to move with the will of the people. Federal jurists have tenure so it’s a long process replacing those that have become unpalatable but a determined public will eventually have its way. ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 1:34 pm Didn't Bush, et. al. come out in favor of ID before the Dover ruling came out? I love how he is reduced to saying that it's intuitive and a given, so long as you aren't a dreaded atheist.  But, ID has nothing to do with religion.  You just have to believe in order to get it.  And, I really love how he boils it all down for us about how it's all political.  Nice one DT.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:13    Since DT is reading us, and since he's evidently so good at predicting the future, perhaps he'd like to comment on the following brilliant prognostications he laid on us last September, in predicting how Dover would go? (http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371)   Quote This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. How'd that work out for you, Dave? Oh, and by the way, Dave. Since you were wrong about PVM not having a PhD, would you share with us YOUR credentials? -------------- "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

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:27    Quote Didn't Bush, et. al. come out in favor of ID before the Dover ruling came out? I thought Bush came out in favour (sorry, favor) of Teach the Controversy, but that was a couple of years ago, and he might have been briefed by his science advisors since then. Quote What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. Phew, my new ironymeter is still intact.  Just. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:31    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195#comment-42412 Quote 1.  Cute… this new strategy of the Materialistic Fundamentalists: 1. Create this pretense that ID is dead and that it’s central proponents have abandonded it. Use the interweb to spread the sham. 2. Point to the decision of an activist judge in a podunk Pennsylvania town and cite this as the nail in the coffin. 3. Perpetuate the canard that biologists are the only ones qualified to examine biological systems and make judgements about their origins. 4. Pray to the gods of Darwin that people don’t find about the last 30 years of scientific discovery in various fields (namely, the hard sciences). Good luck, Mr. Dingleberry. You’re going to need it. Comment by Scott — June 8, 2006 @ 2:01 pm Ummmm, I'm right here...you could address "the kicker" too.  Jeez.  What do I have to do around here to get some respect? Now, how do we pray to the gods of Darwin?  I thought all Darwinists were athiests [sic].

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:33    Quote ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. Ah, yes, the famed prognostications of DaveTard the Elder. Donned his plastic armor,  hitched his wagon to a broken-down horse and thinks he's Charlton Heston in Ben Hur. Too bad that horse can't trot, eh? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:52    Weird. I wasn't basing my comment on science's evaluation of ID. That was a big negative long before the March, 2002 "compromise" proposed to the Ohio State Board of Education by DI CRSC Director Stephen C. Meyer and Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells that ditched calling it "intelligent design" in favor of "critical analysis". The DI leadership is clearly taking steps to de-emphasize "intelligent design" as a label, and that was the basis for my comment. The stuff that I brought up in that regard is not interpretation, but rather plain facts: ID *was* shelved in favor of "critical anlaysis" in Ohio; the Ohio antievolutionists *did* go on record time after time denying that ID was any part of their stuff, etc. Of course, Dembski is stuck. He has to continue to promote "intelligent design", and his crew of cheerleaders have to deny the obvious to go along with him. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:54    And who is it that is supposed to be a "materialist fundamentalist"? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:17    Quote No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors. What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. Let's see, a failed baseball team owner and a bunch of right-wing lawyers turned politician support ID, therefore the scientific argument is over. My, oh my.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:20    Quote ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank Forget the bank, get my bookie on the line! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:24    No, remember what DT said: Quote What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. This statement is actually entirely correct, but, uh, just not in the way DT was implying. I think DT got all worked up and wrote that screed in a bit too much of a hurry. DT ain't good at thinking on his feet when he's angry. -------------- "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

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:38    DaveScot bragged: Quote ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. But I thought that that the DI had clearly stated that they didn't want ID taught in school?  And didn't that one guy say that you still didn't have a scientific theory of ID?  Is there now a scientific theory of ID?  Could you please state it somewhere, DaveScot?  As much detail as possible please.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:38    Quote Isn’t it true that an irreducibly complex system may have come about either gradually or suddenly? The key is not whether it came about as a single abrupt system or as a result of a long cumulative process. Rather, the key is whether the system as it stands exhibits specified complexity that is the hallmark of intelligence. There is no requirement that a designer, in the process of infusing specified complexity, must do it all in one fell swoop or not at all. Comment by Eric Anderson — June 8, 2006 @ 11:47 am In a nutshell: "Irreducibly complex systems don't even have to be irreducibly complex, if we think they are designed!" The Maelstrom inside the heads of those guys is pretty impressive. Oh and, Dave dude: You mind if I quote you on your new "ID should be taught in schools because it's intuitively obvious" remark? Maybe even call you as a witness on our side in any new trials (yeah, right)? I'm sure you have the time, and a genious of your magnitude is always an acceptable authority... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:41    Bilbo, at least, understands that so-called ID researchers aren't part of the scientific community (and therefore presumably don't do science): Quote And I think the lesson we should learn is that trying to get ID taught in public schools is counterproductive to our goals. I suggest that instead we should focus on dialogue with the Scientific community at the college level... Though my guess is that he'd object to my interpretation of his statement.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:45    I've been in the loyal opposition to ID since 1997. I don't think Dembski much cares if I say something negative about ID. On the other hand, I think that it likely is an issue that Dembski's friends at the Discovery Institute have apparently decided that ID -- and Dembski by extension -- are either superfluous or expendible, for the good of the cause. Heck, I'm not even the messenger on this. The DI's actions over the past several years have been quite clear. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:05    DaveScot said: Quote ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. But I thought that mathematically proving ID was pretty much Demski's sole purpose?  Is he now out of a job?  How soon then will we be seeing DS's mug adorning the banner atop UD? Intuition is really great science though, DS.  Did humanity a  whole lotta good during the dark ages.  Too much scientific progress there.   Public opinion is also a great way to conduct scientific research.  Afterall, why spend all that time, effort and money using the scientific method when you could just conduct a poll of 16-30 year-olds?  Just think about all the useful data you'd end up with -bearing in mind half of them probably can't even spell 'science'. You go right ahead, DS.

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:09    Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,14:03) As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. And DaveScot once again scores an own goal. So a statement about not establishing a government endorsed religion is the only thing keeping ID from supplanting evolution? -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:18    MarineTardDave ---gah, you beat me to it, Wonderpants. Nice catch. "But ID isn't about religion" (*snort*) -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:20    There's all kinds of inadvertent gems in DT's little rant there. He seriously did not think this through. He just got all pissed at Wes, banged it out on his computer in 5 minutes and clicked 'post'. When someone as awash in cognitive dissonance as DT improvises, there's no predicting what will come out. -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:38    Quote ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. And at the bank, we'll put it in our safe deposit box, right next to that bottle of single-malt scotch

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:40    Don't stop, Marine Sgt. Dell executive fungus cultivator Scott! Your other foot will fit if you relax your jaw. -------------- "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

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,11:49    Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2006,16:38)     Quote ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. And at the bank, we'll put it in our safe deposit box, right next to that bottle of single-malt scotch (apologies to Steve) for those not really interested in wading through Dembski's drivel, here's the relevant passage:     Quote They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles. To see why, check out the fine Utah Law Review article by David DeWolf et al. at http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf. I wonder who collected that bottle of scotch from WD40? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:13    Quote Dr. Dembski, I actually like the idea of renaming ID as IE. I know few IDers who do not see some reasonable semblance of common descent in their understanding of the way life on earth came to be. Whether species a became species b mutation by mutation, or whether the designer went back into his archive of DNA code, modified it, and produced a new creature — species b, its still a variation on common descent. I think that the ID movement has been rhetorically trapped by the ID creationist label. I think that we would benefit by declaring that we are IEers. Comment by bFast — June 8, 2006 @ 4:57 pm Oh yeah, it's been 15 years, time for another name change, that'll fix everything. -------------- "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

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:18    I had to read the latest from Dr WAD a few times. WAD's latest Read the article WAD posted, then read his comments.  You'll have to read the article again after reading WAD's comments because the relationship between the two is not clear. Bottom line - I think WAD is a lot dumber than we give him credit for.  Seriously, the notion he is "bright but misguided" is flat wrong in my book.  He's an over achieving dunce if you ask me.   Not an idiot savant by any stretch of the imagination, but someone who is not real bright yet is still able to accomplish a great deal - an overachiever for his level of intelligence. Chris And here is my commentary on WAD's comments: Quote Indeed, the finding is so “unexpected” that biologists don’t have a clue how evolution did it. It is not that "unexpected, WAD and biologist do have a clue how it came to be, you are the one without the clue. Quote Expectation and prediction — aren’t these roughly the same? Doesn’t one have to have an expectation of what will happen to predict it? No Dr WAD, they are NOT the same.  I expect my children to behave yet I predict they won't always meet my expectations. Quote If evolution keeps doing completely unexpected things, how can the theory properly be said to be predictive? What you're saying is with each new discovery of things we had not yet known we should throw in the towel because we did not see it coming?  I guess you think the Psychic Friends Network is science since they predict everything? Quote Maybe it isn’t really a science. Gosh, what a horrible thought. All those well-meaning biologists completely out to lunch and spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors. There ought to be a law against it, I say! Indeed...How can anything really be science if it doesn't suggest (predict?) a space zombie did it?   Quote Comment by William Dembski — June 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:23    for those wondering about potential motivations for ID suppporters, some time ago, I found this little essay by Ron Bailey.  It's well worth considering.  I don't necessarily agree that one of the primary underlying factors is the old Straussian idea of the need for religion as a stabilizing influence, but he does raise some interesting points about the politics and history involved in this issue. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784133/posts -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:28    Quote Dr. Dembski, I actually like the idea of renaming ID as IE. I am an enormous retard. I support ideas which will get us totally boned. Comment by bFast — June 8, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:29    Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,14:03) I'm famous.  Not as famous as Wes, but more famous than AC I would say (yeah, I'm the "kicker")... http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195   Quote Over at antievolution.org Wesley Elsberry tries to write an obituary for ID. Arden Chatfield faithfully rewords and repeats his master’s hallucination in the next comment. The kicker is a cat named GCT who asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately? No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors. What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative. As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It’s all political at this point and unfortunately for Wesley and his ilk he must convince a majority of voters that it’s his way or the highway. He’s failed utterly at that task and now we simply wait for the purposely slow moving wheels of the federal judiciary to move with the will of the people. Federal jurists have tenure so it’s a long process replacing those that have become unpalatable but a determined public will eventually have its way. ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 1:34 pm Didn't Bush, et. al. come out in favor of ID before the Dover ruling came out? I love how he is reduced to saying that it's intuitive and a given, so long as you aren't a dreaded atheist.  But, ID has nothing to do with religion.  You just have to believe in order to get it.  And, I really love how he boils it all down for us about how it's all political.  Nice one DT. It's intuitive that the sun moves around the Earth, so is DaveTard going to advocate that too? Since when was intuition a basis for deciding scientific theories? Has spending so much time working at Dell rotted Dave's brain, or was something else responsible? Enquiring minds are curious.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:36    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 08 2006,17:23) for those wondering about potential motivations for ID suppporters, some time ago, I found this little essay by Ron Bailey.  It's well worth considering.  I don't necessarily agree that one of the primary underlying factors is the old Straussian idea of the need for religion as a stabilizing influence, but he does raise some interesting points about the politics and history involved in this issue. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784133/posts That article seems quite witless to me (not once does the author doubt that Darwinism 'is about to collapse at any minute', but he does hit the nail on the head once that I can see: Quote Gross believes that the conservative attack on Darwin may be a case of tactical politics. Some conservative intellectuals think religious fundamentalists are "essential to the political program of the right," says Gross. As a gesture of solidarity, he says, these intellectuals are publicly embracing arguments that appear to "keep God in the picture." -------------- "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

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:55    Now we have this dude Charliecr posting ... Quote When was the last time an evolutionist contributed something to science ? The display of ignorance over there just gets more and more mind-blowing.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:57    Arden, I think you missed what the author was pointing at. In fact, he wasn't dissing darwinism at all, he was trying explain where the position of Kristol et. al. comes from, and what THEY are saying, and why. His point isn't to defend or deny darwinism, but to point out relevant bits that relate to the historical context of the neocon position and adoption (as of 1997) of the concept of intellgent design, and why there was a  vehement argument against "darwinism". However, if you read far enough, Bailey does briefly expound on the mountains of evidence in favor of the ToE, including the fossil record, genetics, and molecular biology. in that sense, I found it a cogent treatise on the mind of a neocon, and while I didn't agree with several of his conclusions, the material presented in the essay is quite informative; not from a scientific perspective (it was never intended to be presented as such), but from a socio-political one. hence why i recommended it.  there are LOTS of folks who haven't a clue about the history of the politics involved, or even what neocons have to do with any of this. The article provides a nice summary perspective on that issue, which is quite relevant IMO. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Pages: (1000) < ... 117 118 119 120 121 [122] 123 124 125 126 127 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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