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... > Conservapedia funny

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:18    So Schlafly now wants to figure out a way to sue Lenski into stopping what he's doing for several months and handing over every scrap of data to a group who couldn't possibly understand it. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....h_n.php

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:29    Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2008,14:18) So Schlafly now wants to figure out a way to sue Lenski into stopping what he's doing for several months and handing over every scrap of data to a group who couldn't possibly understand it. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....h_n.php actually, *they* don't want it. They want someone else to have it, they're just not sure who. -------------- "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

Quidam Posts: 229 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:33    The e-coli cultures are the data... -------------- The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:36    Quote (Quidam @ July 04 2008,14:33) The e-coli cultures are the data... Perhaps we can get him to do some sort of taste test? -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:37    Holy crap. Look at this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual Andy Schlafly is completely obsessed with homosexuality. Maybe he's more like his brother John than we know....

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,14:47    1-- Schlafly cant 'sue' Lenski.  Lenski doesnt 'own' his data, nor is he in control of who he can send data/samples to.  Michigan State owns that material.  Thus, Schlafly will have to 'sue' Michigan State. 2-- I, nor anyone else in research, is required to 'send our data' to anyone, on demand.  Our institution can send samples to another institution (or industry) via material transfer agreements.  Schlafly is neither a university or a private research industry, thus no one is going to send him anything. 3-- E. Coli require the approval of environmental health and safety.  They would not approve the shipment of experimental bacteria to Schlaflys home refrigerator. 4-- Example: Someone has generated a mouse line we want.  They have published on it, and are required to 'give' the mouse line to us if our uni asks.  That individual is under no obligation to spend time/money/resources on 'giving' us the mice.  If they have to hire someone to rederrive the line from embryos we have to pay for that.  Thus, if Schlafly wants every last bit of data from Lenski, Schlafly must pay for the salary of any necessary help, all the reagents, supplies, space, etc.  I doubt he has that kind of bread. Conclusion, Schlafly is an idiot.  But we already knew that.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,17:38    Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2008,15:37) Holy crap. Look at this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual Andy Schlafly is completely obsessed with homosexuality. Maybe he's more like his brother John than we know.... The bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet, is all. I have yet to see that disproven. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,20:13    The problem for Schlafly is that he has pretty much implied that if the data is correct then he is wrong.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2008,21:40    A comment by Philip J. Rayment on the talk page caught my attention:   Quote It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists accept speciation. They also accept beneficial mutations. The one that they don't accept is mutations adding information, because it is not observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated.  [bolding my --OT] Could someone remind me again how ID differs from creationism? -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,02:43    Quote (olegt @ July 04 2008,19:40) A comment by Philip J. Rayment on the talk page caught my attention:     Quote It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists accept speciation. They also accept beneficial mutations. The one that they don't accept is mutations adding information, because it is not observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated.  [bolding my --OT] Could someone remind me again how ID differs from creationism? In ID they don't mention Noah's Ark quite as much. -------------- "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

Advocatus Diaboli Posts: 198 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,04:47    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2008,02:43) Quote (olegt @ July 04 2008,19:40) A comment by Philip J. Rayment on the talk page caught my attention:       Quote It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists accept speciation. They also accept beneficial mutations. The one that they don't accept is mutations adding information, because it is not observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated.  [bolding my --OT] Could someone remind me again how ID differs from creationism? In ID they don't mention Noah's Ark quite as much. Its all part of Papa Phillip's brilliant strategy. -------------- I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong. "I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot "Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova "UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

Argon Posts: 7 Joined: July 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,08:49    Re: Schlafly suing for access: Check the dialog pages and the history of the Lenski pages. One bit of data that Schlafly claimed wasn’t supplied was the concentration of glucose used in the experiments. That information was actually presented on the very first page of the paper. See how Aschlafly deleted my entries and references to that bit of allegedly missing data. If he’s going to claim that Lenski is withholding data, then he’s going to have a hard time demonstrating he’s made a good faith effort to find it first.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,10:38    Schlafly is becoming a new icon of tard. Delightful. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,11:23    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 05 2008,11:38) Schlafly is becoming a new icon of tard. Delightful. The UD crew will be so jealous... -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,12:40    Quote So Schlafly now wants to figure out a way to sue Lenski into stopping what he's doing for several months and handing over every scrap of data to a group who couldn't possibly understand it. I've pointed this out elsewhere, but this whole pathetic set of demands and (now) threat of lawsuit is a page out of Steve McIntyre's playbook (Climate Audit). In particular, McIntyre has made all sets of demands to get access to Lonnie Thompson's "raw" data based on PNAS requirements, government grant requirements, Science journal (or was it Nature) requirements, etc. In each case he's been told that the data provided by Thompson is either adequate or predates the current guidelines (IIRC in regard to online access, as much of Thompson's work was done before such guidelines were set). McIntyre has gone so far as to state he'd sue Thompson/Feds/etc over taxpayer-funding-of-research fantasies if it weren't for the fact that he (McIntyre) is Canadian and would have no standing, blah blah blah. Anyway, rest assured that Schafly's ranting is a 3rd-rate imitation of McIntyre's original, which in itself was remarkably pathetic and has gone nowhere...

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 07 2008,14:04    I got a phone call a little while ago from someone who wished to remain anonymous (going so far as not even telling me who he was) asking for a link to be added to the TalkOrigins Archive creationist site page. He wanted three articles at Conservapedia linked. I said our usual policy was to link to one article at a site like that, and he wanted the "Theory of Evolution" page linked. My caller also noted that we have a bunch of dead links on our links pages. He's right. I took an hour and worked through the "A"s on the creation links page, commenting out the ones that now have no domain, or have turned into generic links pages for a domain registrar, and tracking down new URLs for 404'd pages where possible. The page is now updated and includes the Conservapedia link. Like I said, I don't know who my caller was, but he was willing to concede that there is some dreck produced on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. Specifically, he was willing to provisionally cast out Kent Hovind as not doing a good job of representing the antievolution cause. Anyway, the TalkOrigins Archive could use a volunteer to handle updating our links pages. There's going to be a lot of work up-front to bring it up-to-date (pruning dead links as a last resort, but finding current pages or linking to the right spot in Archive.org for things that don't resolve correctly now), but once that's done, it shouldn't take much time to add or change a few entries each week. PM or email me if you would like the job. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Argon Posts: 7 Joined: July 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,20:02    You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper. http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS Sweet!

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,20:51    Oh thank-you thou mighty stream of creatotard- For I had believed not that the flow might continue, But, more! The flow doth increase and the tard bounty grows thick and deep. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,21:07    Quote (Argon @ July 22 2008,21:02) You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper. http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS Sweet! OMG that's hysterical. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,21:32    Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2008,21:07) Quote (Argon @ July 22 2008,21:02) You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper. http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS Sweet! OMG that's hysterical. Quote Author:    Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. Author Affiliations:    www.conservapedia.com I'm sure PNAS will really give a crap. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,21:37    Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2008,22:07)   Quote (Argon @ July 22 2008,21:02) You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper. http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS Sweet! OMG that's hysterical. Come to think of it, I've serious reservations regarding the design of the Large Hadron Collider. I've got some demands for the design team. And I have some suggestions to improve the science, too. I demand they respond here. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2008,01:33    Quote (Argon @ July 23 2008,02:02) You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper. http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS Sweet! It's all posturing to be able to claim persecution and fraud when the big bad evilutionists ignore his claims. -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2008,07:48    Ya ya, you mean THIS kind of posturing:

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2008,07:57    Too bad H.L. Mencken isn't around to call Andy a tinpot pope. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2008,08:46    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2008,13:57) Too bad H.L. Mencken isn't around to call Andy a tinpot pope. Can we do it for him? Louis -------------- Bye.

Argon Posts: 7 Joined: July 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2008,09:50    It's one thing to pull accidently shoot yourself in the foot once but quite another to ignore all advice, pull back the hammer and keep firing repeatedly. Godspeed! Andrew's other affiliations are: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (General Counsel) Eagle Forum University (Teacher) But he's real touchy about associations with the latter.

baikinman Posts: 4 Joined: July 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2008,12:07    I'm eagerly anticipating the submission of the anti-Lenski letter to PNAS. Wasn't this supposed to be out the door by the end of the week? The talk page surprisingly still shows people trying to talk a little sense into Schlafly. Good luck.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,12:25    Hahahaha "Raggs" lets loose on Schlafly on that talk page: Quote Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on. As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. Raggs 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,13:54    I am fairly confident that PNAS will publish asshat's letter.  How better expose his ignorance and arrogance? They apparently have banned anyone with half a dozen working neurons, so they get what they have strived to achive- total stupidhood. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,14:27    If you read that talk page closely, you'll see they intend to contact members of congress, either a cc: of the PNAS letter or in a separate letter. Why? Quote There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. They have no chance of success, of course, but it's extremely telling that they want to work to ban funding for research of this type ...

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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