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

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (346) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 2556 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,19:35    I don't think a "sticky" will be needed. Threads in Ikonboard float to the top on recency of additions in the thread. I will be encouraging PT contributors to make use of the ability to move comments from PT to this thread. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Tim Hague Posts: 32 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,21:31    Hello Larry.  Welcome to After the Bar Closes.   If I don't believe a theory is useful, why would I use it?  I would say that using a theory implies some kind of acceptance that the theory may be useful.   You must also be careful not to fall into the 'evolution is just a theory' trap, because evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory.

Moses Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,02:54    <quote>Comment #73125 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 18, 2006 04:45 AM (e) That was after a Supreme Court ruling. So far, there has been no Supreme Court ruling on ID, and no evidence that any of the states are being intimidated by threats of anti-ID lawsuits. In fact, one of the Ohio board of education members said, “let them sue us.” A million dollars is just mad money for a state.</quote> Silly Larry and his silly theories of "a new name = a new trial" theory of "stupid courts."  Everyone with a brain knows that ID is creationism.  It was just renamed in a contest right after Edwards v. Aguillard or McLean v. Arkansas (can't remember which right now and really don't care).  Therefore, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.  Then, the new name was exposed for all to see in Kitzmiller v. Dover. And that, of course, is the beauty of the legal system.  When you try to dress the emperor in new clothes, the legal system just doesn't care and looks a the fat, old-man underneath.  We don't need to have 5,000 trials over 5,000 slightly variant names.  We just need to see it and act.

Corkscrew Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,02:55    Can someone please move Larry's comment to the Bathroom Wall or something? Now he's whining in earnest, the thread is guaranteed to go to at least 200 posts, which will make it hard to locate genuine points amidst the incipient morass of stupidity.

Raging Bee Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,02:55    Notice how Larry only complains about off-topic posts AFTER he loses every off-topic argument he chose to start?

ben Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,02:55    I think everyone but Larry has noticed that.

Mr Christopher Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,03:43    <blockquote>Can someone please move Larry’s comment to the Bathroom Wall or something? Now he’s whining in earnest, the thread is guaranteed to go to at least 200 posts, which will make it hard to locate genuine points amidst the incipient morass of stupidity.</blockquote> I agree with the cork screw

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1620 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,03:51    Hoorah! Glad to see this. Maybe less threads will be getting trashed.

improvius Posts: 797 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,06:00    Quote If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming,  then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ?  Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class. The litigation is not about protecting evolution.  The litigation is about preventing the state from advocating a particular religion.  You can't teach a class that advocates religious doctrine in a public school.  It doesn't matter what label you slap on it. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,06:09    Hooray, Larry is finally here, well sort of... Quote Larry wrote: Also, if the public does not know that ID is “deceptive,” then why not teach the public about ID in school so that they would be better able to make up their own minds about it ? By not teaching about ID in school, we are promoting ignorance, not reducing it. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? That's the kind of class that "dumb" Mirecki was going to teach!

Steverino Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:04    "If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming, then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ? Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class." Becuase idiots like yourself want to force your views upon my child. It's no different than cheating or threatening my child. I will stand up and stop your from imposing your personal beliefs on my child. You want a child who believe in they myth of Creation...then fvck with your own childs mind.

Larry Fafarman Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:21    <blockquote>Comment #73124 posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on January 18, 2006 03:22 AM Since the Bathroom Wall is once more available, stuff that looks like it’s not doing anything useful here is being moved there. If you are looking for your deathless prose, try there if it isn’t showing up here.</blockquote> I cannot believe that my response to your Comment #73162 was removed to the Bathroom  Wall.     My response was definitely on-topic.    You removed my response not because it was off-topic,  but because you disagreed with it. Also,   two of my responses to off-topic posts have been removed,  but the original off-topic posts,  Comment #73088 and Comment #73128,  both of which are personally directed at me,  are still here.   I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act. It is about time that the commenters on Panda's Thumb were treated with some respect.     Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine. I expect this post to be removed too,   but I hope that some of the commenters here get a chance to read it.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1230 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:38    Hey *I* read your comments Larry, and they're still mindless. Yep we should teach the controversy about intelligent design creationism, that non-scientific theory in crisis.  Let kids decide is my motto.   As far as the course content goes, let's start with the Wedge Document.  Children should know that the Discovery Institute's two governing goals include: 1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. 2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. Let's help kids learn the dangers of replacing our scientific understanding with "theistic understandings" (Pat Robertson's comments on a variety of subjects will be used as an example of "theistic understandings"). Then let's add the "Teach The Controversy" campaign championed by the Discovery Institute.  We'll follow up those lessons with an in-depth study of the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. Then let's teach what "peer reviewed" means.  Let's also teach kids what the "scientific method" is as well as devote some time to identifying what is a testable theory and what is not.  What is science and what is pseudo-science (intelligent design, healing crystals, cancer curing magnets, palm reading, etc).  We should cover what is natural and what is supernatural too. Yep, we should be teaching about intelligent design creationism in public schools.  You will not get an arguement from me on that one. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

rdog29 Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:51    Hey Larry - Lay off the opinion poll crap already! As pointed out many times before, science is not conducted by opinion polls. What is Constitutional to teach is also not decided by opinion polls.   I suppose if enough people wanted Holocaust denial taught in history class, that would be OK too, huh? Instead of relying on opinion polls, why don't you and the other IDiots come up with a theory and some data to support it?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1620 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:54    Quote (Guest @ Jan. 18 2006,13:21) ... I cannot believe that my response to your Comment #73162 was removed to the Bathroom  Wall.     My response was definitely on-topic.    You removed my response not because it was off-topic,  but because you disagreed with it. Also,   two of my responses to off-topic posts have been removed,  but the original off-topic posts,  Comment #73088 and Comment #73128,  both of which are personally directed at me,  are still here.   I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act. It is about time that the commenters on Panda's Thumb were treated with some respect.     Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine. I expect this post to be removed too,   but I hope that some of the commenters here get a chance to read it. LOL. Let me point out to you what annoys people. You post on a thread. Your point sounds on topic. Your backup arguments however are normally incorect. To refute you there are really only 2 choices: 1. Ignore your incorrect statement. Leaving lurkers to conclude you are right. or 2. Point out your errors .Where the thread starts going off-topic.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 2556 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,08:02    Quote Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine. And the evidence that would support this statement is, what, precisely? PT in its first week passed 1,000 visits per day. We're coming up on our 2e6th visit. I suspect if every post simply referred commenters to the AE AtBC forum, that the visit figures would not change by much. Besides which, J.A. Davison has already laid claim to this argument, saying that banning him would cause PT to wither and die. Guess what? Traffic has been up since then. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Sir_Toejam Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,08:10    <quote>Whatever damage was being done was not irreversible. The alleged damage to the impressionable minds of the students could have been undone by brainwashing those minds in the great truths of evolution theory. </quote> Larry provides a living case example that disproves his own statement. If post-hoc exposure to actual data and evidence could "brainwash" anybody, you would be our willing slave by now.  We've spent weeks directing him to the completely verifiable mountains of evidence detailing aspects and support of evolutionary theory, but he consistently puts his hands over his eyes and willfully ignores it. psychological defense mechanisms know no bounds; once exposed to a general set of theories that fit a pre-supposed worldview, it's quite hard to shake. I personally have witnessed what happens when kids of high school age are exposed to slick but mis-representative ideas like ID.  they initially cause mass confusion at best, and completely confirm ideologies for some. that's why we teach science in science class, because it's based on evidence and experiment, not supposition and ideology.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,10:29    Larry sobbed: Quote I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act. man, he sounds more and more like JAD with each  post he makes. makes me think they share a similar pychological malady.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:25    for those wondering about evopeach: here is the thread where he was banned from PT: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....2;st=10 Quote Moderator Posts: 23 Joined: May 2002  Posted: Oct. 22 2005,12:54     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read the board rules Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach". Others who want to continue to use this BB for playground antics will follow. Is that clear?   somewhere about a week before that, evo made all of PT a bet that the plaintiffs would lose dover, with the stakes being that the loser would leave PT. I can't find the original bet he proposed now, but found several references to it. If anybody finds it, post it here. it should be somewhere around Oct. 15th, if that helps any.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1230 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:31    STJ, I believe you are looking for this thread.  Funny that I read and bumped this thread yesterday, or maybe the day before. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....14;t=39 But evo peach is still posting on PT. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,14:12    don't forget that a lot of the comments are transfered from PT (red bolded poster handles), and so if they had quotes in them, you will see angle brackets instead of square.

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,14:37    Crikey - you learn something new every day.. ... and you mean Larry's not  'here'?

Nyarlathotep Unregistered (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,14:42    "counter-intuitive and contrary to reason" certainly seems to be Larry`s mantra for all facts that run contrary to his preconceived notions.  Leaving aside the fact that a great many of us find the idea of a non-corporeal person that is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to be both completely meaningless, and useless except as a convention of langage, the concept is very "counter-intuitive and contrary to reason."  Larry, most of modern science, including things that you can in no way pretend to deny are based on theories that are "counter-intuitive and contrary to reason."  It is very bizarre to think that a picture can be broken down into innumerable tiny pieces, transmitted through the air, and reassabled in real time to form a comprehensible image, and yet this happens every time you turn on your television.  Modern science is much more complicated and messy than the science merely as a mental exercise that was practiced by Aristotle and his like.  Like it or not, the mere fact that a theory is not inherently obvious to the most cursory glance is no proof of its invalidity.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,15:35    Quote ... and you mean Larry's not  'here'? if you see larry's name in black, he posted that here. if  you see it in red, he posted it somewhere else and somebody tossed it in here because it was stupid and offtopic.

Henry J Posts: 1746 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,16:09    If this thread is now the official successor to The Bathroom Wall (which was left read-only since Aug. 18), maybe the link in the "Information" box of the http://www.pandasthumb.org/ page should be updated to point here? Oh, and And the parent note of this thread could have a secondary link to its predecessor thread. Henry

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1620 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,21:03    It would be good if this thread became popular to post on. I used to like the bathroom wall. You could have all sorts of off-topic conversations without trashing a sensible thread.

stevestory Posts: 7712 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,10:37    Thanks for restarting The Bathroom Wall. It needs to be better integrated with PT, but this is much better than nothing.

billgascoyne Posts: 2 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,10:45    One of the premier trade papers of the electronics industry posted a letter: http://www.eetimes.com/news....7100146 to which I have replied, and it looks like they're going to print my reply, which I include here (they will probably edit one or two things): OK, business is slow and you guys are trying to start an argument here, aren't you? Jack G. Atkinson Jr.'s letter is straight Bible-belt creationist tripe. It's an argument from incredulity ("I have qualifications that have nothing to do with the issue, and I can't imagine 'X', Q.E.D.") combined with an argument from authorities (Gitt and Behe) that have been thoroughly discredited. Go ahead, folks, read Gitt and Behe, then go to www.talkorigins.org and search for Gitt and Behe.In a nutshell, Gitt missuses Claude Shannon's founding work in information theory, and Behe rehashes the 19th century watchmaker analogy of William Paley. On top of that, Atkinson uses the key creationist phrase "only a theory" which indicates that he has no idea what the word means in a scientific context (hint: it's way beyond the word he really means, which is "hypothesis"). Still more standard creationist ideas can be found in his inappropriate conflation of cosmology and biology. Creationists typically get confused here, what with the Big Bang getting us from 13 billion years ago up to 4.5 billion years ago, geology (which Atkinson ignores) giving us an idea about how long ago the Earth and the solar system were formed, and biological evolution (which doesn't say anything at all about the "particles" he complains about) taking us the rest of the way. When you absolutely know that it all started "In the beginning" and that was during one week about 6000 years ago, there's not much difference in your mind between millions of years and billions of years, or cosmology and biology. One must admit that the entire "particles to man" flow does indeed have one huge scientific hole in it, called "abiogenesis," that is, life from non-life. Yeah, it's true, no one on this planet really knows how it happened. Atkinson, however, would have all inquiry in this matter brought to a screeching halt with the words, "God did it." Where would we be if Ben Franklin had been satisfied with that answer regarding lightning? The proper scientific answer is not "God did it" but "we don't know," which is the beginning of wisdom. The bottom line, Mr. Atkinson, is that what's under attack is not simply evolution, not simply biology education, but science itself. And that jolly well should be of concern to future EEs, and present ones.

Flint Posts: 470 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,10:45    evopeach: You may genuinely enjoy this book. Not only does it cover a lot of ground you seem totally unfamiliar with, but it would let others know that your subsequent pronouncements along these lines were lies rather than merely ignorance. It's pretty easy to understand. Granted, it's an entire book, but outside your religous reservation, knowledge doesn't come packaged in Received Slogans. Sorry about that.