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... > ID, anti-evolution and you

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,06:53    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,06:47) as well as discover the do's and don'ts of AtBC. Do's:   Make fun of clueless creationists Dont's: Randomly insult people and use pages of swear words.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,06:55    Quote (guthrie @ April 18 2007,06:53) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,06:47) as well as discover the do's and don'ts of AtBC. Do's:   Make fun of clueless creationists Dont's: Randomly insult people and use pages of swear words. I also noticed: Don't:Try to engage a creationist in a real debate. They aren't interested -------------- 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.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,12:09    I've long been interested in what makes creationists tick, ever since I got to university in 1980 and was shocked to find out that some people still believed in Biblical literalism (hello, Mad Norman).  I discovered the forum while following the Dover DI Death March, lurked for a while, then joined the afdave pile-on. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,13:57    Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2007,16:32) I get a lot of entertainment here. Without posting a big biographical piece--I have to run in a second--.... So Steve, what's your story (steve, story, stevestory... hu huuu *cough*)? It seems you have a good background in evolutionary biology. Are you a scientist?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,14:11    BA in physics. I do some engineering and programming these days. I have had several biology / geology / chemistry classes that relate to evolution, but not much formal training really. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably go into psychology and sociology. To me, those are the most interesting areas of science, and that's where I do most of my science reading these days.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,14:15    -oops - wrong thread -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Ra-Úl Posts: 93 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,16:35    I came to lurk in AtBC in the wake of Dover; I needed a tard-whuppin' fix and after Judge Jones issued his findings, it was slow going at PT (which I found googling ediacaran fauna), so I followed the afdave pile-on from there here and from here to the Dawkins forum. I really have to cut back on my tard-whuppin' watching and do the dishes more often. J-Dog's school life sounds like mine except he's a youngster, and except also that I'm Colombian and moved to the States at 12. I'm Presbyterian, raised and schooled in a religious home and a Presbyterian school in Bogota. I don't remember ever doubting evo and deep-time cosmology; I studied anthro 'cause of the Life magazine Epic of Man series in the early sixties (in the Spanish version; don't know the title in English and that's the closest translation). I may be what you call religious, but as I said, I read a lot of science as a kid and never doubted anything on religious grounds, had no friends that did so either and creationism was as rude a surprise to me in the US as the extent of racism. I am now a court intepreter. -------------- Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,16:40    Quote (Ra-Úl @ April 18 2007,16:35) I am now a court intepreter. HAHA.  DO YOU MAKE TH EKING LAUGH WITH YOU'RE STICK WITH BELLS AND YOUR SILLY DANCES? THIS IS YOU: LIBERAL WUSS! DO YOU HAVE SHOES THAT ARE ALL CURLY UP AT THE ENDS LIKE A TUKISHMANS SHOES.   SHOULD HAVE WORKED FOR DELL! -------------- "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: April 18 2007,17:43    Quote what brought you here? simple. the link from PT. what made me stay was the ability to engage by being able to create your own contributions, and the witty banter. oh.. and my flamethrower and ebola bag. still waiting on the t-shirt. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Ra-Úl Posts: 93 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,18:11    Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2007,16:40) Quote (Ra-Úl @ April 18 2007,16:35) I am now a court intepreter. HAHA.  DO YOU MAKE TH EKING LAUGH WITH YOU'RE STICK WITH BELLS AND YOUR SILLY DANCES? THIS IS YOU: LIBERAL WUSS! DO YOU HAVE SHOES THAT ARE ALL CURLY UP AT THE ENDS LIKE A TUKISHMANS SHOES.   SHOULD HAVE WORKED FOR DELL! ####! I knew I should have spell checked the #### thing! Englis is a language ful of spelling traps! And where did you find my picture, Dave Springer's wallet next to that picture of your wife dressed in a walsus suit begging Dave to father her pups? Watch out or I'll sic the one legged Cuban transvestite bank robber on you, or put the Mexican Midget Matadors on yr ass, pal! (May I call you pal?) -------------- Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

Ra-Úl Posts: 93 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,18:15    Oh, and make that walrus suit. Sheesh. -------------- Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,18:21    I think I first arrived here from PT by way of the Bathroom Wall.  I was curious where the "bounced" posts went to and why. Stuck around because you didn't have to toe the lines of "civility" and "objectivity" nearly to the same degree.  The links and images and personalities were much more vivid and beguiling. Got hooked, mainlining davetard, of both varieties. It's been downhill ever since, like a degenerating genome.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,20:51    Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 18 2007,19:21) Stuck around because you didn't have to toe the lines of "civility" and "objectivity" nearly to the same degree.  The links and images and personalities were much more vivid and beguiling. PT is for the dignified professionals. AtBC is for the flashy amateurs.

Freelurker Posts: 82 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,21:32    Quote (J-Dog @ April 16 2007,22:01) I came for the learning, stayed for the fun! Me too. I’ve always had a broad range of interests, and this whole ID/Creationism issue touches many of them: politics, religion, science, math, history, and, sometimes, engineering. It’s great fun to hear from learned people from all of these fields with all of their colorful personalities. As an engineer, I have found that the best way I can contribute to the debate is by countering the misrepresentations the ID/C folks make about the relevance of engineering to ID. Comparisons between engineering and ID actually undermine the ID position. Engineers and scientists are natural (pun intended) allies in this debate. My appreciation of this began when I read the excellent article  “A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'?” by Mark Isaak. -------------- Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.] All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,01:56    Quote (stevestory @ April 19 2007,04:51)   Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 18 2007,19:21) Stuck around because you didn't have to toe the lines of "civility" and "objectivity" nearly to the same degree.  The links and images and personalities were much more vivid and beguiling. PT is for the dignified professionals. AtBC is for the flashy amateurs. WHO ARE YOU CALLING AN ASSEY HAMATEUR, HOMO? YOU MUST BE TALKING ABOUT RICHARD T. HUGE WHO IS A FLASHY GIRLYBOY. PS: Ra-Úl NANOOK WANTS HIS WALRUS OUTFIT BACK. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,03:11    Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2007,16:40) Quote (Ra-Úl @ April 18 2007,16:35) I am now a court intepreter. HAHA.  DO YOU MAKE TH EKING LAUGH WITH YOU'RE STICK WITH BELLS AND YOUR SILLY DANCES? THIS IS YOU: LIBERAL WUSS! DO YOU HAVE SHOES THAT ARE ALL CURLY UP AT THE ENDS LIKE A TUKISHMANS SHOES.   SHOULD HAVE WORKED FOR DELL! Hey, thats rentaghost, isn't it?   How dare you besmirch a ghost promoting childrens TV program to push your evil atheistic ways!

Ra-Úl Posts: 93 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,12:23    Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,01:56) PS: Ra-Úl NANOOK WANTS HIS WALRUS OUTFIT BACK. Tell nanook to take it up with Quinn. I think I gotta lay off the Dylan while at work. I should say that I stay tuned to AtBC beacuse ke, RTH, the Mistress of the divine shimmy and DM among others are always good for a laugh even in the absence of obvious tard-ness to incite them. That is, when they're not after my walrus collection. And leave my narwhal alone you preverted prevaricators. Rilly. -------------- Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,20:30    Hi All, I got introduced to ID and Panda's Thumb from the Dover trial.  I am not sure why an Electrical Engineer with a small company to run got hooked on this, but I did. I have convinced myself the ID issue will be like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.  Is this the dawning of another Dark Age or a new age of enlightenment? IMO, the DI people aren't stupid, they are desparate. I agree the ignorant masses are still ignorant, but watch out when they start gathering torches and pitchforks. Hopefully, this explains why I still keep an eye on the subject. Provoking Thought

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,22:00    Early 2005 I went to a seminar on simulating the signalling cascade that controls the bacterial flagellum. Searching for more information on google led me to an interview with Michael Behe, which mentiond his book called darwins black box. We had a copy of this in our library (thanks Andy MacIntosh), so I give it a read and wasn't very impressed. From that I found the Discovery Institue website and read a few articles and found we also had NFL in the library (in the history of Science section). A few months later I was at the Royal society for a conference, and was talking to someone who worked there who mentioned they were going to publish pictures of a live giant squid. When I googled for that I found pharyngula, and then the Pandas Thumb. Then a couple of months later the Dover trial started and my friends at work finally believed I hadn't made the whole thing up to make religious people sound stupid.

Robert O'Brien Posts: 348 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,02:58    I used to defend Bill Dembski, but since he flew off the rails I have become disillusioned with him. I think it is a shame he is wasting his talents. -------------- Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,05:14    I'm curious Robert, at which point do you think he flew off the rails?  I'm sure you appreciate that to most of us here he did so as soon as he started publishing on ID.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,07:47    I'm struck by how many of the people here first got interested in ID during the Dover trial or thereabouts. The ironic thing is that ID was already, by that time, dead. It had already fatally floundered in Kansas, during the Kangaroo Kourt.  Indeed, it had already been crippled beyond repair in Ohio. In my own DebunkCreation list, we've had lots of people suddenly flood in over the last few months -- I suspect it's because all the books about ID that were inspired by the Dover trial are only now just beginning to hit the bookstores (it takes over a year for a book to get into print once the manuscript has been submitted). Alas, everyone who is only now entering the fight, is already too late.  ID is dead, dead, dead.  The fight is over.  Nothing left to do but sweep up and laugh at them. But, if you stick around for a few years, ID will be back (as soon as they think up a shiny new name for their same old arguments).  As soon as the Republicrat Party gains political power again (and that could be a long while) the fundies will be back. *Then* you'll get your chance to cross swords with them. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:56    LETS HOPE YOU'RE A DISTANT MEMORY BY THEN FLANK -HOMO. *ducks* snicker -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,11:47    Hi Robert, I suspect you ran into the same thing I did.  Dr. Dembski is very good at dropping pearls of "wisdom" that hint at a substantial argument.  For example, Dr. Dembski uses terms like "Telic Properties in Nature" in situations where he needs non-religious cover.  His fingerprints are all over something called "Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis" that could be considered an exploration of the possibility of intelligence being embodies an all of nature. As an engineer, I have had to deal with many PhD types.  Practically all of them have trouble putting things into terms that can be understood by a layman.  For some, it is an honest inability and requires a lot of work to help them help you.  For others, it is because they, themselves, don't know what they are talking about.  For those like Dr. Dembski, it is cleverly intentional, IMO.  He is not dumb, but even he can't maintain the subterfuge for people determined to look for substance behind the fancy words.  However, it works very nicely on people who want to believe what he is saying is true. Rather than tell IDers they don't know what they are talking about, I provoke them into thinking for themselves and ask them to explain to me their thoughts in their own words. Very few ID proponents can do that.  Those that do distance themselves from Dr. Dembski with the possible exception of Salvador T. Cordova.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,12:29    Hi "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank, Now that I am done embarrassing myself about my stereotypical bias about "PhD types" I wanted to respond to something you brought up. I probably heard of ID prior to Dover.  I vaguely remember a Seattle-based think-tank arguing that the St. Helen's volcano aftermath provided scientific "proof" supporting a young earth.  I also heard about what was going on in Kansas.  Dover provided a one-stop-shop opportunity for evaluating the latest creation-science arguments. Yes, Dover was an obvious loss from the start (I found the verdict anticlimactic), but what struck me was that with a difference cast of characters, the creationists could have won Dover.  I will spare you the details of why I think that (unless you are interested). The other thing I noticed was the "Big Tent".  People who normally wouldn't give each other the time of day were coming together to fight a common enemy.  Why?  Because they are getting desparate. G.W.Bush set a new standard for ignoring "reality-based thinking" along with a disregard of ethics in government.   It is my impression, the next time the pendulum swings right it will be too late to do anything about it.  We need to negotiate the peace treaty now, while we have the upper hand.  The alternative is to annihilate the enemy completely, which I doubt we can do.

The Wayward Hammer Posts: 64 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,14:30    I grew up reading Asimov's excellent non-fiction essays.  My mother was a microbiologist and I used to help her set up sensitivities in the lab and she would explain how resistance came to be in bacteria.  I remember not being smart enough to NOT argue with the creationists in high school.  Since then I have realized that there is no point in arguing with them - they come not from a place of logic. I don't recall exactly how I got here - I think it was through crank.net. I enjoy reading and learning here.  I will always stop and read a Zach posting.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,15:17    Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 22 2007,12:29) Yes, Dover was an obvious loss from the start (I found the verdict anticlimactic), but what struck me was that with a difference cast of characters, the creationists could have won Dover.  I will spare you the details of why I think that (unless you are interested). Yes, I am interested . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,16:44    Hi Lenny, There were two main problems for the defendants in the Dover case.  One problem was that the book Of Pandas and People was obviously a creationist textbook.  The other problem was that the defendants were guilty as ####.   I believe the defense strategy was to present the Dover's school board's actions as stupid, not illegal. A possible strategy is based around the Santorum Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment "It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Senator Santorum was (is?) one of Pennsylvania’s senators.  It was entirely reasonable for Dover to respect the "sense of the Senate" and "prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."  Especially when that sense was articulated by a home state's Senator.  There is the added benefit of a controversy as to whether the amendment was binding or not.  Dover could decide to error on the side of caution and comply with the amendment.  Like it or not, Intelligent Design was/is arguably one of the more likely "evolution" subjects of which students would be unprepared "to be informed participants in public discussions." This all combines for arguing a well-meaning board making available supplemental textbooks on the subject of ID for science students.  The purpose of these textbooks would be to understand the arguments being made, not to make the arguments themselves. What got the Dover school board in trouble were their obvious motives and public pronouncements.  A more careful board wouldn't have distributed flyers explaining "their side" of the debate and wouldn't have got caught in their own lies.  They would have also agreed to the Science Teachers' suggested wording change in addition to agreeing to having the books in the library and optional. The defendant’s lawyers needed to argue ID's science status was a moot point.  Per the Santorum Amendment, Students must be prepared to participate in discussions about evolution which, inevitably, includes unscientific arguments.  It is beyond a district court Judge's reach to question the "sense of the senate". The non-activist Judge Jones might have been forced to reluctantly agree the Dover school board actions were misguided bit, lacking evidence to the contrary, weren't illegal. I suspect there might be a lawyer or three that can explain the gaping holes in my thinking.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,18:09    Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 22 2007,16:44) A possible strategy is based around the Santorum Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment "It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Senator Santorum was (is?) one of Pennsylvania’s senators.  It was entirely reasonable for Dover to respect the "sense of the Senate" and "prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."  Especially when that sense was articulated by a home state's Senator.  There is the added benefit of a controversy as to whether the amendment was binding or not.  Dover could decide to error on the side of caution and comply with the amendment.  Like it or not, Intelligent Design was/is arguably one of the more likely "evolution" subjects of which students would be unprepared "to be informed participants in public discussions." This all combines for arguing a well-meaning board making available supplemental textbooks on the subject of ID for science students.  The purpose of these textbooks would be to understand the arguments being made, not to make the arguments themselves. Alas, all that stuff was argued in Georgia and Ohio, where it lost spectacularly.  And the reason is simple ---- the entire "controversy" that the Santorum Amendment wanted students to "understand" is based solely and only on fundamentalist religious opinions, which are, alas, illegal to teach in public schools.  And the Senate has no more right to require religious opinions be taught to students than does anyone else  -- it's just as illegal and unconstitutional for Santorum to demand that students be taught someone's religious opinions as it is for the Dover school board to demand it. So none of that would have helped them in Dover, any more than it helped them anywhere else.  It is precisely why "teach the controversy" is currently just as dead, dead, dead as "teach ID's alternative theory" is. Anti-evolutioners have an impossible task.  What they want to do is preach their religious opinions.  That is illegal.  And it's simply not possible to preach one's religious opinions while at the same time pretending that you're NOT teaching one's religious opinions. It's why anti-evolutioners will never win in court.  Ever. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,19:00    Hi Lenny, While I hope you are right, I beg to differ with you. I watched the Ohio situation pretty closely (since I live there).  I would be surprised to learn it reached the inside of a courtroom.  Maybe I am wrong and please let me know if I am. For Georgia, I presume you are talking about the Cobb sticker case.  That was mostly decided on the second plank of the Lemon Test (religious motive). I think we should count ourselves lucky Cobb settled the case (religious organizations were begging them to take their money and continue the appeals). Were you aware that Justice Clarence Thomas feels it would be constitutional for states to declare a state-wide religion?  Scalia is a little less radical than that, but not much. This right-leaning Supreme Court just held up a federal law banning certain medical procedures regardless of the risk to a pregnant woman's health. Why are you so certain they would refrain from deferring to the "sense of the senate" (like they did for Guantanamo prisoners) and reject an "explain (not teach) the controversy" argument in a school board case?

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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