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... > UnReasonable Kansans thread

Pages: (341) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2007,20:45    Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2007,21:19) Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40) First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO. Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference. It is Saturday night here in Chapel Hill, NC. There are 2 parties going on in the apt. complex tonight, and I expect to be blasted within the hour. Accordingly, though I will be checking in occasionally, I will not be fit to defend the statement that causality is always an inference in science. Should that statement come under attack, I want anyone versed in the philosophy of science to feel free to defend it in my absence. Over and out.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2007,21:37    Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2007,20:19) Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40) First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO. Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference. I completely understand that, and totally agree.  I did not state that a "scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science".  Those are your words, not mine.   Some inferences are supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered at *almost* the same level as fact.  But, there are many, many inferences made in scientific research, and I don't think they are all equally supported by the empirical evidence being applied to them. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2007,22:43    Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track. FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it. -------------- "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: April 07 2007,22:57    {getting tingly all over} Do I need to keep the heels on?  I'm pushing 6'2" in these suckers and they're killing my feet... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2007,23:06    Yes. I enjoy how they push your calf muscles up. http://talkdesign.org/cs/index.php?q=theft_over_toil Chance, necessity, design, don't know? -------------- "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

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2007,23:50    One thing that I don't get about Dembski's EF is that it assumes that events that have a low probability are, well, improbable no matter what. Individually they may have a high improbability, but nevertheless given time at least one (and actually many) of them is bound to happen, and at any rate, where does Dembski get off in claiming that any particular biological structure is improbable? What is that based on? The more I read about his ideas the less I understand them. Not to inundate Ftk with reading material, but a book that I found really helpful is Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences by John Allen Paulos, which explains how common so-called coincidences and improbabilities really are (innumerate is a term I apply to myself). He's a mathematician and must know this stuff. (BTW, I can't believe that this book has no index. I indexed half the book for my midterm and would be interested in completing the project if people would use it.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,08:41    Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40) "(she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist)." ... is absolutely and positively false.  I do not believe this in any way, shape or form.  In fact, this is so not me that I am suppressing the urge to scream.   First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does. snip... I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory. (emphasis added) There are none so blind as those who will not see. FtK, there are many examples on your blog where you talk about lectures you have attended, and books you have read, where you barely disguise your disdain for evolution. That disdain is NOT based on your scientific understanding of the topic. You have proven, over and over, that all of those hours listening and reading have not resulted in any intellectual understanding of evolution, or even science. Your disdain is clearly based on your fear that evolution poses a threat to your religious worldview. That's OK; you are entitled to that opinion. But it would really be helpful if you could just admit it. I will await, eagerly, the "evidence" for the claims of Christianity. I cannot imagine that they are more convincing than the millions of observations, inferences, predictions, and revisions that underlie evolutionary theory, but I await enlightenment on that topic. -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,09:46    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,08:41) [quote=Ftk,April 07 2007,19:40]"  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does. I will await, eagerly, the "evidence" for the claims of Christianity. I'm more interested in why IDers continue lie to us, in public and in court, that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or Genesis or Christianity. At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such. So tell us, FTK, why do Dembski and the others lie to us, repeatedly and under oath, about the religious nature of ID "theory"? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,11:00    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 08 2007,09:46) At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such. Well, ummm, maybe so, or maybe not. Check the comments here, where Jeremy (in a most excellent and cogent series of arguments) points out the deceitfulness of the DI in regard to disguising apologetics as science, and FtK promises to discuss that later. -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,12:02    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,11:00) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 08 2007,09:46) At least FTK has the honesty (which Dembski et al don't) to admit that ID is Christian apologetics -- nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  No evasions from her about "space aliens" and "maybe the designer isn't god" and such. Well, ummm, maybe so, or maybe not. Check the comments here, where Jeremy (in a most excellent and cogent series of arguments) points out the deceitfulness of the DI in regard to disguising apologetics as science, and FtK promises to discuss that later. Alas, disillusionment sets in -- contrary to all my hopes and dreams, my blonde amazon is, indeed, just another deceptive evasive dishonest liar for the Lord, like every other run-of-the-mill IDer. What a surprise. I am shocked.  SHOCKED, I say. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,14:08    Oh goodie, another blonde-versus-brunette battle. The tall and willowy blonde Nellie Olsen versus the petite, brown-haired, strong-as-a-little-French-horse tomboy Laura Ingalls. Favorite quote from Innumeracy: Quote One collection of coincidences too unlikely to be dismissed in this way is provided by the case of the proverbial monkey accidentally typing out Shakespeare's Hamlet. The probability of this occurring is (1/35)N [N is supposed to be an exponent] (where N is the number of symbols in Hamlet, maybe 200,000, and 35 is the number of typewriter symbols, and the blank space). This number is infinitesimal - zero, for all practical purposes. Though some have taken this tiny probability as an argument for "creation science," the only thing it clearly indicates is that monkeys seldom write great plays. If they want to, they shouldn't waste their time trying to peck one out accidentally but should instead evolve into something that has a better chance of writing Hamlet. Incidentally, why is the question never put as follows: What is the probability that Shakespeare, by randomly flexing his muscles, might accidentally have found himself swinging through the trees like a monkey? -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,14:20        I refuse to be "Nellie Olson".... Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever). -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,15:06    Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40) I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory.   I have a problem accepting macroev. and common descent as "facts".   Both of these statements can't be true. You understand the mechanisms and readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory, but you don't accept macroevolution? Nonsense.  You have no more undersanding of the mechanisms of evolution than winged monkeys flying out of Lenny's posterior orifice! The problem scientists have with creationists (pay attention, FtK) is that creationists just make things up.  Take Ken Ham (please!) for example.  Hard to wish away dinosaurs 'cause the skeletons are all over the place. So, we'll put them in the Garden of Eden!  But, you say, they would eat Eve!  Ah, no, at that time they ate coconuts.  Before the apple-serpent thing. It's not what creationists believe, rather it's the intellectual dishonesty with which creationists present their arguments that causes controversy. Under oath in a court of law Behe testified that ID is not science, yet here he is a year later on the talk circuit spouting forth his same old arguments as if nothing ever happened.  That's dishonest. And when a school board gets infested with dishonest creationists then it takes time and money to clean up the mess that shouldn't have been caused in the first place. So, yeah, I have a problem with creationists.  I understand their tactics and I readily accept the historical record that given half a chance creationists would push their religious views into the science classroom. I have a problem accepting creationism and "intelligent design" as science.

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,15:42    Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,14:20)     I refuse to be "Nellie Olson".... Which is just what Nellie would say.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,15:44    Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,19:40) I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does. Is this the scenario that justifies such a statement? 1. FTK is brought up a Christian and accepts the religion thoughtlessly. 2. At some point in her life, possibly late adolescence, a time of rebellion, she has an epiphany: "Maybe this Christianity isn't the right religion after all.  Maybe its claims aren't backed up by evidence."  So she investigates the world's religions.  She reads.  She attends services.  She discusses.  She Googles.  She collects evidences.  She compares the evidences for Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zoroastroism, Mormonism, Animism, etc, etc.  She weighs these evidences.  She agonizes. 3. How many evidences for each?  How do you weigh them?  Could this take a lifetime? At what point does FTK throw in the towel and go back to that old time religion? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,16:37    Sorry to burst that bubble, Lenny. I'm sure you'll find some way to work through your grief... Additional insights into Nellie's worldview can be gleaned from this long blog post from last November which includes this historical revelation     Quote No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools. snip... When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“. But don't let that excerpt stop you from reading the whole post; it has lots of other scientific insights as well... -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,17:33    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2007,16:37) Sorry to burst that bubble, Lenny. I'm sure you'll find some way to work through your grief... Additional insights into Nellie's worldview can be gleaned from this long blog post from last November which includes this historical revelation       Quote No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools. snip... When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“. But don't let that excerpt stop you from reading the whole post; it has lots of other scientific insights as well... *Sadness*   -------------- "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

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,17:45    Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,13:20)     I refuse to be "Nellie Olson".... Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever). Well, I refuse to be Veronica. But thanks, we're off to the Guthrie now that my hangover has worn off. Another Innumeracy quote: Quote Broadly understood, the study of filtering is nothing less than the study of psychology. Which impressions are filtered out and which are permitted to take hold largely determines out personality. More narrowly construed as the phenomenon whereby vivid and personalized events are remembered and their incidence therefore overestimated, the so-called Jeane Dixon effect often seems to lend support to bogus medical, diet, gambling, psychic, and pseudoscientific claims. Unless one is almost viscerally aware of this psychological tendency toward innumeracy, it is liable to bias our judgements. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,17:48    Quote (Doc Bill @ April 08 2007,15:06) winged monkeys flying out of Lenny's posterior orifice! HEY !!!   I saw "Bruce Almighty" !!!!!!! I know what happens when you say that !!!!! OWWWWWW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

The Wayward Hammer Posts: 64 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,21:26    I will attempt to help out Steve in his moments of inerbriation, although I have consumed most of an entire bottle of a very nice Italian red myself.  The ladder of evidence: - Fact.  Defined.  Repeatable. - Inference - data that can explain the facts - Hypothesis - logical chain that may explain the facts - Opinion - gut feel.  Expert opinion is the gut feel of an expert. - Faith - someone else's opinion. - Fantasy - well, you may add your favorite ID thought here. Your job, as a scientist or investigator, is to move your understanding up the ladder of evidence.  Cause, effect, data, experiment; all are fair game in moving up the ladder. Quick aside: brunettes rule.  Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, Rachel Ray, Hurley, my wife.  Case closed!

Tom Posts: 15 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,21:48    Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,22:38    Sheesh...you people are going to drive me insane quickly.   Yeah, I think Brown's stuff is interesting...so what. If you really want to dig into some reading, I can refer you to a 3 month debate that occured in the same forum.  I led the thread, with Brown commenting on occassion.   Of course, it would have been much more fun if people had played along with my initial plan on how to set the entire thing up, but they were all serious party poopers.  No matter...I found it quite interesting anyway. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,22:42    "Tom", I noticed that you are a new member.  You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you?? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,23:13    Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48) Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting. Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud. What about plate tectonics? *GULP* -------------- "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

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2007,23:49    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2007,21:13) Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48) Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting. Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud. What about plate tectonics? *GULP* ??? Plate techtonics, Arden? Surely you know about Walt Brown's continental drag race hypothesis? -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,01:39    Quote (argystokes @ April 08 2007,23:49) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2007,21:13) Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48) Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory): http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001475;p=1  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting. Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud. What about plate tectonics? *GULP* Plate techtonics, Arden? Surely you know about Walt Brown's continental drag race hypothesis? Was that the theory AFDave was referring to when he talked about the continents moving to their current places at 60mph? -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,01:48    Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better. http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007....ew.html Ps - I'm waiting on my underwear update. I love it, it makes Kristine jealous and Lenny twitchy. -------------- "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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,07:14    Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,22:42) "Tom", I noticed that you are a new member.  You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you?? Notice how substantive questions are ignored, and personal gossip is initiated... Re Walt Brown, yes, it is quite clear that FtK finds his stuff "interesting"; she relies on his "expertise" quite a bit. See the comment thread here, where she quotes Brown's claptrap verbatim (Richard, you will find the original topic quite interesting, but it quickly veers away).     Quote For example. all species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Clearly Brown has not learned enough biology to know about incomplete digestive systems, or even nephrons... And FtK accepts this completely bogus stuff as part of the "massive evidence against evolution" that she often talks about but never gives a citation. So here it is. -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,08:42    FtK has posted her "review" of Humes's lecture here. In actuality, it is a standard re-casting of debunked creationist arguments, untruths, and other interesting items that have little to do with Humes's main topic, the Dover trial. I have posted a comment (below) that will, of course, not appear there. So you read it here first. Quote Interesting choice of "scientific" bugaboos to rail against. As I'm sure you know, Dembski's accusations against Eric Pianka (that he "believes in the necessity of killing off 90% of the world's population in order to save the environment") is simply not true. Untruth is not a good footing on which to start any article. And then you start to quote debunked and misleading creation "scientists", as if again to show that your understanding of basic biology and even more basic science is quite meager. There are a lot more errors and misleading statements in that post that I'd be happy to address. But since your devotion to open debate seems not be be extended to me, I'll wait and see if you post this comment first. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,08:54    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2007,08:42) FtK has posted her "review" of Humes's lecture here. In actuality, it is a standard re-casting of debunked creationist arguments, untruths, and other interesting items that have little to do with Humes's main topic, the Dover trial. I have posted a comment (below) that will, of course, not appear there. So you read it here first.   Quote Interesting choice of "scientific" bugaboos to rail against. As I'm sure you know, Dembski's accusations against Eric Pianka (that he "believes in the necessity of killing off 90% of the world's population in order to save the environment") is simply not true. Untruth is not a good footing on which to start any article. And then you start to quote debunked and misleading creation "scientists", as if again to show that your understanding of basic biology and even more basic science is quite meager. There are a lot more errors and misleading statements in that post that I'd be happy to address. But since your devotion to open debate seems not be be extended to me, I'll wait and see if you post this comment first. Dembski in true malicious form also called the department of homeland security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....roversy He is a very poor advert for Christianity. -------------- "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

Pages: (341) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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