AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Arden Chatfield

form_srcid: Arden Chatfield

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: Arden Chatfield

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Arden Chatfield%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/22 09:41:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Jan. 22 2006,08:48)
Ok, fellow Carol trollers, I have Carol's, I mean, Landa's book.  Let's see how much mischief we do to her, I mean, his thesis?  Any questions?
Now please remember I can't keep my eyes glued to my monitor 24/7, so I can't reply quickly.

Wow, you actually bought Landa/Clouser's book? I hope you found a used copy of it, I'd hesitate to give them royalties...

I definitely agree with an earlier comment, Carol is really nothing more or less than a missionary. She has a different shtick from most missionaries, with this whole "everything in the OT is literally true, as long as you translate the Hebrew words a certain way", but she's just here to make converts. But I supposed the same is true of all the other IDC trolls that frequent PT.

Date: 2006/01/22 11:48:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2006,17:40)
The I&O are completely consistent with science. The parts which don't seem to be are all miracles, so they don't count.

If it's fair game in proving the 'scientific accuracy' of the Bible to say that everything that is objectively impossible is a 'miracle' (basically walling off everything difficult), then why even be a Christian apologist at all? That precise line of argumentation would serve you just as well in proving the 'scientific accuracy' of the Koran, the Vedas, Dianetics, or the Navajo creation legend.

Date: 2006/01/22 13:40:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2006,18:57)
Heddle wrote
[on patriarchal longevity] I told you I do believe in the long ages are scientific, not miraculous.

Since you're now 'accepting science', can you you tell us why people now live as tenth as long as they did back then? Why does this not qualify as yet another one of your miracles?

Date: 2006/01/22 13:51:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 22 2006,19:21)
Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

Josh does get confused easily.

How long did this go on for before you were banned?

Date: 2006/01/22 14:05:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 22 2006,19:58)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,Jan. 22 2006,19:40]can you you tell us why people now live as tenth as long as they did back then? Why does this not qualify as yet another one of your miracles?

What do you mean by this?
Are you aware that in Northern Europe during the ice age the life expectancy of an adult was the same as now?

Life expectancy there dropped drastically once civilisation started.

BTW. I am only talking adults here. Child mortality was higher. But if someone made it to adulthood they could expect a long life.[/quote]
Um, maybe I wasn't clear.

Heddle is now claiming that Methuselah having made it to 900-whatever years old is 'scientific', not a miracle.

So he now seems to think There's A Perfectly Good Explanation for all them ancient Hebrews making it into the high three digits.

Since he's now removed this from the realm of Magic, it can now be discussed scientifically. And I'm just dying to hear from Heddle how folks back in OT times made it to such ages while no one lives anywhere NEAR that old now, or, for that matter, during all of recorded archaeological history. That is, why people now live to be a tiny fraction of the age that they did in Noah's or Methuselah's time.

Did they have less stressful lives? Did they eat more fiber? More hummus? Nice healthy, dry, desert air?

Date: 2006/01/22 14:29:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 22 2006,20:20)
Thanks David, for clarifying your position. I've only been following Panda's Thumb for ~6 months, and even then not religiously (pun sort-of intended), so if you had stated your position earlier than that, or on a thread I didn't read, I didn't see it.

But I think it was clear by the other posts here that there were a few regulars who weren't clear on where you stood.

I've been harassing Heddle at PT on this particular issue for a month or two. The pattern is pretty consistent. About now we can maybe expect one or two more peevish emails from him where he snarls something about our attitude and how we're misquoting him or whatever, but without actually answering the question. We will then continue to press him, pointing out that he still hasn't answered the question. At that point he will drop out of the discussion and reappear some unrelated place 2-3 days later.

It can't be easy living with all the cognitive dissonance that must be inside Heddle's head.

Date: 2006/01/23 03:48:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2006,07:42)
You guys want this too-simplistic criticism—that anything that is shown to be unscientific can simply be declared a miracle—but that is unthinking.

That's too bad, since, uh, that's what you DO, David...

Congratulations, you pretty much answered exactly like we predicted.

Date: 2006/01/23 03:57:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2006,07:42)
I thought I explained that in a previous post. I cannot give the detailed science, because it is in its infancy, but research is ongoing into genetic causes of aging, the cessation of cell reproduction, etc. It leaves the door open to the possibility that we were genetically altered for shorter lifespans.

Uh, extremely VAGUE there, Heddle, did you overhear someone talking about this on a bus?

1) 'we were genetically altered': by whom? why?

2) what reason is there to accept this other than that it makes it a bit easier for you to take a literalist interpretation of the Bible? Given that you can't REALLY support this at all, wouldn't it be a far far likelier explanation that it's simply a myth that those people lived to be centuries old? And more to the point, why should anyone who doesn't have a stake in the inerrancy of the bible believe this?

Date: 2006/01/23 04:02:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,09:55)
You see, you comfort yourself that you have rationally decided against believing, but in fact that’s not the case at all—it is impossible for you to believe unless you are drawn by God.

Why should we consider you an expert in what goes on inside of others' heads? And why are you an expert in what god does? How are you qualified to make these statements? Seems awfully arrogant, to me...

Date: 2006/01/23 04:14:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,08:48)
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

"Guided non-Darwinian evolution"?? That is priceless.

So these guys have been forced by evidence to accept evolution, but they'll be damned if they'll concede an inch to that DARWIN bastard!

Maybe 'macro-evolution' is Darwinian, but 'micro-evolution' = 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

Date: 2006/01/23 04:29:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,10:21)
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

I have to admit, as distateful as Davison is, that was sort of a poignant statement, not least because he shows absolutlely no comprehension whatsoever of why he engenders this reaction everywhere he goes.

Let this be a cautionary lesson: don't let yourself spend your retirement years like this, an angry charmless crank posting to blogs and alienating everyone.

Date: 2006/01/23 04:34:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,10:27)
When Wiley Coyote walks off the ledge and doesn't immediately fall, that is simply a miracle.

No, when Wiley Coyote runs off the cliff and doesn't fall right away, that's not a miracle, that's scientific. You see, I saw this article a while ago, and while I don't remember it real well, or can't explain it, and the science is in its infancy, it appears as tho back then, gravity was different from how it is now. There's reason to believe that gravity was less then, so people (and coyotes) didn't always fall right away.

Once again, Warner Brothers proves itself completely compatible with science. You guys sure seem to be obsessed with proving Loony Tunes wrong!

Date: 2006/01/23 04:40:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
However, the roadrunner running through a rock painted to look like a tunnel IS a miracle.  That one's not science.

But since it's a miracle, it still doesn't disprove Loony Tunes.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:34:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,11:27)
It is an extreme position, David. If I understand you correctly, you're saying there is no correlation between whether someone was brought up in a religious environment and whether they end up having religious tendencies. That is patently false.

I hope he doesn't believe that, but it is a position I've seen with a few evangelicals like Heddle before -- they say that they're Christians because of how truthful it is, or because God spoke to them, or because they CHOSE it for whatever reason. What they DON'T say is "I'm a Christian because my parents were and everyone else around me was". The fact that they were raised in and lived in a context and a society where Christianity is approved of and very strongly encouraged doesn't enter into it. It's the same thing as claiming that every Muslim in Saudi Arabia is a Muslim because they chose to be so, or because the religion makes so much sense.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:54:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Have you read the other posts?—I have painstakingly stated that miracles happened, that by definition they are inexplicable, and they therefore are exempted from the debate You can join the herd and say: “well, then with that giant loophole what’s the point?” or you can think about it for a moment and consider that the bible makes many statements that (a) obviously were not describing the miraculous and (b) can be examined for scientific error.

It's not 'joining the herd', Heddle. Millions of Americans take YOUR position, that impossible things in the Bible really did happen because they're miracles. Yours is not an especially brave or nonconformist position.

It is in fact a very real issue, which you're doing an amazing job of ignoring.

Bottom line: WHY examine statements in the bible for factual error, if anything that is a factual error can, as a general principle, be exempted as a miracle? MANY people think this is a valid question that you haven't answered in any meaningful way.

Seriously, Heddle, this would not be a problem, except that you do go around saying that the Bible does not conflict with science. If you actually said, "there are things in the Bible that I know conflict with science but I choose to believe them anyway", then there'd be no problem. I for wouldn't bother arguing with you, since there's no way to argue with that. I wouldn't want to emulate that position but it would at least be honest. Instead, you keep coming here and to PT over and over and over and over, for who knows what reason, making the claim that the Bible and science are compatible with no problems. Repeatedly many different extremely smart people point out to you how many conflicts there are. (BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP.) And you say the same thing -- 'that's a miracle, it doesn't count. Why can't you understand this?' Given how few converts you've made to this position, why do you still bother?

Date: 2006/01/23 06:06:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2006,11:46)
Children are first introduced to superstitions at about age 1 or so when they are taught about Santa Claus who serves as a training diety.  A bait and  switch concept to be sure.  Bait them with Santa and later switch them to Jesus.

Probably a correct explanation of why people originally 'did' Santa, but it's not always so these days. My parents introduced me to the Santa myth right on schedule when I was little, with no intention of switching me to Jesus later. Most of the kids I knew at the time were in the same boat.

Date: 2006/01/23 06:26:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2006,12:16)
It carries a great deal of weght with me that someone in your coffee house characterizes theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon,  Jonathan Edwards, Francis Schaeffer, etc, all of whom taught that the bible teaches  predestination (which is what we are really talking about here), idiots. That really is convincing.

Careful, you're starting to sound like Josh Bozeman. We know you're smarter than him.

Date: 2006/01/23 06:44:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,12:31)
I don't. Does Bozeman also believe creating and refuting obvious strawmen is going to work here? If not it might be him who's smarter.

I think MOST people are smarter than Josh Bozeman, but what reminded me of JB here was the brief dip into snide, fratboy "real brilliant, guys" type sarcasm. You'll notice that JB pretty much can't argue a position for any length of time without the devastating argument of calling anyone who disagrees with him 'crazy'.  I don't think he could create and refute a strawman even if he wanted to.

Heddle at least has a basic understanding of the broad outlines of how evolution works, even if his likely purpose for hanging out here is to undermine it all and replace it with a diluted formulation of IDC. JB lacks the basic education to even do that.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:14:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,13:10)
Actually, you look kinda young in the pic on your blog. I'd picked you as being much older.

I went thru the same thought process, too -- after reading several of heddle's posts to PT, I first thought he sounded like a cranky 65-year old. Then I saw the picture on his blog, and he looks like he's around 30. Not many young people write like Heddle.  (Except when he gets sarcastic. Then he sounds like his age.)

Date: 2006/01/23 07:19:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17)
Given that the bible says that in our fallen state all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God.

And to think that Christians are always claiming that atheists 'have a dismal, bleak worldview'...

Date: 2006/01/23 07:35:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17)
Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

Do we have any volunteers?  :p

Date: 2006/01/23 08:25:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 23 2006,14:01)
[quote=stevestory,Jan. 23 2006,13:21]Let me turn that around—are you admitting that you are unaware of research into the genetic causes of aging?
Nice try, Heddle, but let ME turn THAT around: are you faulting me for not having heard some theory (which you evidently don't understand anyway) that states that 'long ago', someone or something (ever specified?) was able to turn off the genes for aging such that people really could live to be 900 years old -- in absence of any real evidence of anyone ever living to be anywhere near that old? Is THAT what you're getting on my case for here?

Date: 2006/01/23 08:30:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,14:14)
The 'scientists' say Greek came from ProtoIndoEuropean, but of course they're wrong, because there is no missing link language which is exactly half ProtoIndoEuropean and half Greek. Anyway, similarity doesn't imply common descent. The Intelligent Linguist could have made them similar for other reasons.

You're right, language change could never happen. I mean, I've never seen Spanish change into Chinese. I mean, it's just not believable.

Besides, if Italian is descended from Latin, how come we still have Latin?  :angry:

Date: 2006/01/23 08:58:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,13:54)
Hey Mr. Chatfield, I hear that you're supposed to be some sort of language expert.  :D  Two questions:

1) Have you heard of John McWhorter, and if so, how would you rate The Power of Babble?
2) Has any modern language ever increased its number of declensions and conjugations over time? Languages always seem to trim extraneous grammar as they mix with others. I know that McWhorter uses the pidgeon -> creole -> model, but attic greek and Latin seem "too" complex (yes, the Greek city-states were often geographically separated, but I don't think this fully explains the complexity). I'm not looking for a debate - just your opinion.


1) Yes, I've heard of John McWhorter, and in fact I know him personally.However, while I've read several of his linguistics articles, I've never read any of his popular linguistics books (such as "Power of Babel") nor any of his sociopolitical books. I don't object to them for any reason, I just haven't gotten around to reading them.

2) while it's not real common, there are known cases of languages which increased their number of declensions and conjugations over time.

In fact, McWhorter is one of the main people who is writing books about this, and he's pointed out that when a language simplifies drastically, it basically is always caused by language contact and second-language learning. This is the reason why English is so much more grammatically simple than German and Icelandic.

As far as the complexity of Latin and Greek go, many languages are just a complex as them and haven't lost any of their complexity. For example, the Slavic languages are every bit as complex as Latin and Greek and none of them have lost more than a fragment of their complexity (except Bulgarian).

And besides, as these things go, languages can get WAY more complex than Latin or Greek. Just open a grammar of, say, Finnish, Mohawk or Navajo and you'll see what I mean.

Date: 2006/01/23 09:39:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,15:20)
Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Well, keep in mind that some ID people have accepted common descent, and some ID people have accepted some form of evolution -- but not all of them have gotten the memo. For every one such person who has, there are ten who still say that evolution is ridiculous, common descent is impossible, there's no evidence for transitional fossils, and that speciation has never been observed. As people have pointed out at PT, no IDC idea EVER gets thrown out completely -- once any IDC talking point is launched, it essentially lingers forever in 'folk intelligent design' circles. Whether it's been soundly refuted or even if the DI tells people not to use it anymore, it doesn't matter.

This is one of the most funny things about Intelligent Design -- its complete lack of consensus or standardization of any kind.

Date: 2006/01/23 09:47:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 23 2006,10:06)
Are you more concerned that the name would trigger fundamentalist zeal, or simply that the name is unusual? If the latter, I can tell you that I have a given name you don't encounter very often (Flint, oddly enough), and it's never been the slightest problem.

Your first name is really 'Flint'? What, was that your mother's maiden name, or something?

Date: 2006/01/23 09:54:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 23 2006,15:50)
Your first name is really Arden? In my life I have met one other Flint. I've never met an Arden.

No, my first name is NOT really Arden.  ;)

I guess I'd assumed 'Flint' was a pseudonym. You know, like 'Ghost of Paley', or 'Steviepinhead'.  :p

Date: 2006/01/23 11:20:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,16:49)
Revelations is one of the more interesting books. Jesus goes from friendly hippy to psychotic mass murderer.

Sort of a good cop/bad cop story... :p

Revelations is really nutty. So much so that the Catholics pretty much say of it, "Er, it's alright, you can just skip over this bit..."

Shame so many Protestants seem to think it's THE most important part of the Bible.

Date: 2006/01/23 11:28:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 23 2006,17:17)
I lack the imagination to make up a kewl name like yours, so long ago I resigned myself to the unimaginative use of my own name. Besides, it helps me remember which posts I wrote...

Hey, I never even said my pseudonym was cool, much less kewl...

Date: 2006/01/23 13:00:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,18:01)
pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.

He probably passed that landmark his first day.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:09:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,18:13)
Anytime you want to get rid of me faster,all you have to do is send me a check.

Not when you've got your own slushfund to draw on. Get a cheaper grade of blow, or coeds with with lower test scores. You ain't gettin a dime from me.

Holy shit, who'da thought GoP would have it in him to be this funny??

Getting funding to leave the country in proper style is all the more important now that Canada looks like it's on the verge of going all Republican on us...

So unless you want to move to Montreal and learn French after they split off, it looks like Australia is the best bet.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:18:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19:06)
DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

Date: 2006/01/23 13:35:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Arden Chatfield wrote:
1) Yes, I've heard of John McWhorter, and in fact I know him personally.

Could I get an autograph?

Hey, dude, John McWhorter doesn't sign autographs for just anyone...

Date: 2006/01/23 13:59:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,19:49)
Hey, dude, John McWhorter doesn't sign autographs for just anyone...

B-but....I bought most of his books, and only read one in the bookstore. Also, I give him free pub on this blog, although dullards like the Yenta keep mixing him up with Derbyshire (conservative Johns being so hard to tell apart and all). Maybe he could check in with an opinion on linguistics ("Oh, those evil Towerites"). Even a "Get bent, Paley" would be great.

Jeez, you groupies, what a pain in the ass you guys all are...

Fair's fair, 3 years ago he told a friend of mine that he still votes Democrat.

Now get back behind the rope. I don't want to tell you again.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:06:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (FishyFred @ Jan. 23 2006,19:54)
He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.

Well, he's not all that entertaining...

A pity, I don't relish having him posting here, but it would be nice if he could at least see us all laughing at him.

But hey -- it just occurs to me -- if he posted here, wouldn't he then have to ban himself ? ? ?

The performance art that is UD would then be perfected!

Date: 2006/01/24 05:55:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2006,09:53)
Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining.

It doesn't get better than that line.

Maybe someone should go onto UD and ask how these 'philosophers'' decisions would be enforced? Jail time for scientists who persisted in practicing science without a license?

Amusing how it now seems to be a fad for the Fundies to rebrand themselves as 'philosphers'. Everyone likes philosophers, right?

Date: 2006/01/24 06:07:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Ved @ Jan. 24 2006,12:04)
By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

I think the appropriate term is 'refugee'.

Date: 2006/01/25 05:56:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:42)
From: David Springer <> Mailed-By:

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.

So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?

Date: 2006/01/25 06:23:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2006,11:43)
And I am amazed ftrp11 has not been warned/scolded/booted yet.

Maybe DaveSpringer hasn't had his morning coffee yet.

I think this just shows how easily one can apply the vacuity of ID to, well, any field: anytime you see a 'pattern' and you don't understand it (never mind if others do), voila, it's 'proof' of design.

Science so easy anyone can do it!

Date: 2006/01/25 08:38:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,14:18)
They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.

here's the money quote from the ever-reliable redreader:

Mims proves that credentials and tenure are not the MOST important qualities for a scientist.

The most important qualities are love of the truth, tenacity and faith in one’s own understanding.

Almost heart-rending in its pitiful wishful thinking... Especially how much importance he gives to 'faith in one’s own understanding' -- that's right, the best way to be a scientist is to be absolutely convinced that you're already right.

Note that he doesn't mention the importance of actual, like, uh, knowledge anywhere.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:52:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,15:46)

I agree, there are hundreds of unteachable cranks out there (I could list at least 20 at PT alone!;), but I believe that for every crank there's several impressionable lurkers out there whose opinions still haven't calcified yet. If we take the trouble to pick apart the fifth-rate arguments of the True Believers, perhaps people who haven't made up their minds will watch and think "Boy, they sure shredded him. That guy really didn't know what he was talking about!", and hopefully come away from the experience with greater respect for actual evidence and reason.

Date: 2006/01/25 10:24:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I hate it when Dave Springer, er, Scot says something sensible:

“I’d be skeptical that they would comfort others that are grieving.”

to which Dave replied:

Of course you would. That’s a given since it doesn’t fit with your theological view that humans are a unique creation. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.

On scientific grounds what reason do you have to doubt Dr. Sheldrick’s assertion that they do indeed comfort others in distress? She’s been observing elephants for 30 years. You’ve been observing them how long? Heck, I’ve had cats and dogs that can sense the emotions of others and offer comfort. Based on that I have no reason at all to suspect elephants aren’t commensurately more capable of it but I’d give Dr. Sheldrick the benefit of the doubt even absent anecdotal experience of my own.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll quickly scuttle back to his comfort zone being a tyrannical loon.

Date: 2006/01/25 17:50:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Inoculated Mind @ Jan. 25 2006,22:16)
Flint: Why stop there? All ID has to do is allege that other people have allegedly decided that there could be a hole, if they looked hard enough for it. Can't you see that gOD's existence is herein proven beyond any rational doubt?

I'll do you one better than that: all ID has to do is to find one 'evolutionist' who is a bad person and an atheist, and the whole theory of evolution is disproven, and ID is proven.

Date: 2006/01/25 17:57:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Guest @ Jan. 25 2006,19:37)
<quote>I am trying not to wander too far off topic here.</quote>We might, of course, note that this thread is *supposed* to be about the Hindu effort to teach their doctrine as science. Carol's bible-babble is irrelevant. I guess Landa doesn't have the One True Version of Hindu texts, so Carol feels the need to change the subject to a book she CAN sell.

I have the distinct impression that Carol has no interest whatsoever in any religious text other than the Old Testament. So it's not too surprising she should veer off topic if we're discussing the beliefs of Hindus.

Date: 2006/01/26 06:22:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2006,09:30)
They certainly believe in grandiose statements, don't they? How about this new Dembski post yesterday:

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

IDC people have long been passionate proponents of the theory of "say it loudly and often enough, and that will make it true".

Not surprising -- that's a basic rule of religious 'debate'.

Date: 2006/01/26 06:30:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 26 2006,11:33)
I e-mailed Dave Scot to ask what his policy was on editing comments - he thanked me for asking and has posted a thread explaining the position:

- where he give links to 'Bill's rules'.

Basically rule number one is:

there is no rule number one...

rule number two is: 'I make the rules up as I go along'

... only now it is DaveScot that is making up the rules as he goes along.

How this can be any kind of forum for meaningful debate escapes me.

But I don't suppose that meaningful debate is what interests them? Whats the point when you know the answer™

Rule 1: No pooftas
Rule 2: No member of the faculty is to maltreat the abos in any way whatsoever if there's anyone watching.
Rule 3: No pooftas
Rule 4: I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights-out.
Rule 5: No Pooftas!
Rule 7: no pooftas

Good god, it's even got an entry on wikipedia:

Date: 2006/01/26 06:37:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 26 2006,12:28)
I could easily believe Larry and thordaddy where the same person.
If ProFrom Dover is as well, I would be amazed.

I have a really hard time believing it. Their styles are totally different. Thordaddy is a nasty christian wingnut, while Larry just seems like an aging, nonreligious dunderhead, tho with vague racist leanings. And Pro from Dover is anti-IDC.

Unless we're talking about a person with severe multiple personality disorder, I don't buy it. And since both Larry and Thordaddy have left traces of themselves all over the internet for several years, it seems like an awful amount of trouble to go to just to pull an extended prank on people.

Where is this admin comment? I didn't see it.

Date: 2006/01/26 07:35:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Agreed, Larry is happily ignorant, tho his writing style is pretty coherent. He can chain sentences together and you can get the gist of what he's saying, dumb as it may be. Thordaddy however, just spews a lot of incoherent nonsense, with wild leaps of logic. He looks like he has some significant mental/emotional problems, while Larry comes across like a rather normal old man who's convinced he's right about everything, tho not really like a crazy person.

As someone said on a different thread, cranks are like snowflakes -- no two are alike.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:21:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Also, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, you'd think the Bush administration would have made absolutely sure there were halfway-convincing links all over it connecting it to Iraq, which Bush had already decided to invade. As it was, they made some feeble wild allegations that Saddam 'probably had something to do with it', none of which held up.

It's a pretty ineffectual conspiracy if it's all connected to a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis, two countries that are very closely tied to the US.

That said, the failure of the govt. to come up with an accurate list of the hijackers is very weird. I was also startled to see the claim on that website that none of the hijackers were on the passenger lists. If that's true, where on earth did the names come from? I'd always assumed they went thru the passenger lists for the 4 flights and just pulled out whatever names looked 'Arab'.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:59:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 26 2006,14:50)
Again, the WTC towers were designed specifically to withstand impact from a Boeing 707 flying at 600 MPH, which would transfer as much or more energy to the buildings than a 767 flying at 400 MPH. This is an easily verifiable fact.

Maybe the building designers failed?

Date: 2006/01/26 09:34:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2006,15:16)
What's a poofta?

British/Australian slang for a male homosexual.
More often spelled 'poofter'. ;)

Date: 2006/01/26 10:16:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2006,15:44)
Oh. :rolleyes:


(It's a Monty Python skit, BTW. Wasn't sure if that was clear.)

Date: 2006/01/27 04:33:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2006,08:52)
There's a lot of gnashing of teeth going on over at Uncommon Descent. Read this line of comments and tell me if they look like a happy bunch:

I think people here have a lot more fun than at UD.

Oh, well, except for the fact that the people at UD are all going to heaven...  ;)

I see some previously banned people at UD are back; is DaveSpringer relaxing his policies? Bad publicity and all?

Date: 2006/01/27 04:45:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 27 2006,08:38)
Secondly, most two-year-olds I've known have greater empathy and respect for the opinions/feelings of others than DaveScot.

I think you may be on to something here -- I think DS is one of those remarkable people who comes along every so often who essentially lacks human empathy of any kind. I shudder to think of how his kids turned out.

Date: 2006/01/27 07:05:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 27 2006,12:50)
Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them The latest post from the tireless enemy of ad hominem...(wait for it...) DaveScot!

Post here your favorite examples of egregious DaveScot ad hominems.

This from the man who just today insinuated that a man who disagreed with him was suffering from AIDS-related dementia?

He seems to want the rest of the world to hold to a set of standards from which he is magically exempted...

Date: 2006/01/27 07:42:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hey, check out Thordaddy's latest whining here:

Here's the money quote:

You seem to be making the fundamental mistake in believing that ID must been enclosed by the constraints of science. You are going on about how ID hasn't cleared this scientific hurdle or that scientific hurdle while oblivious to the fact that science is being defined and manipulated by judges, politicians and other various actors who have no use for your limitations.

The point is that ID doesn't need to clear scientific hurdles, it need only humble this intelligent pursuit. If science can answer the question of an IDer in affirmative then ID need not become science because science has become ID. If science can answer the question of an IDer in the nagative... oh wait, it can't do that. It must concede the possibility with no empirical evidence thereby betraying the very essence of modern science.

ID's ultimate goal is to put science in its place by forcing it to recognize its limitation on giving meaning to life. Science must concede this most valuable point. In giving meaning to life, science is inferior to religion.

(boldfacing mine)

If only all the IDC types were this honest...

Also, here's Thordaddy's summary of his adventures here earlier this week:

Mike, (I tried to post this a PT,where I apparently can no longer post. Is this the MO for dogmatic evolutionists?)

Date: 2006/01/27 07:44:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Oo, it just gets better! Thordaddy, Defender of Science:

You make a serious mistake believing that science can continue to fight only on its home turf.

Modern scientific constraints were defined by a judge. Science is being manipulated for political purposes all throughout society. Scientists like their constraints, but no one outside them need heed their limitations as the above evidences.

Yes, most people don't care whether one theory say there was nothing and then life and intelligence sprung forth or there is life and intellgence because of an IDer. But these aren't the ones carrying on the battle.

The scientific box you are in may feel protective and resistent to outside violation, but you are merely deluding yourself. Science is constantly being violated, manipulated and used by more powerful outside forces. If science wants to survive the assault from these forces then it must give greater meaning to our lives. It must give more than "scientific" meaning.

Date: 2006/01/27 10:19:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Does swimming in intelligent design creationism theory and materials cause brain rot?  Once you become a "design theorist" does your IQ turn to mush?  Does "design detection" stunt ones intellect and reasoning functions?

I'm not sure the causation goes in that direction...

Someone can correct me, but I think in philosophy the ‘first’ cause is associated with the ‘final’ cause, which, if so means that the ‘mind’ does not begin to act until it sees the goal (’final’ cause) in sight. Purpose is a property of the mind, and when we see ‘purpose’ at work in biological systems, then we are encountering a ‘mind.’

Comment by PaV — January 26, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

Wow! PaV, what a thought!

Comment by Red Reader — January 27, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

And to think they used to make fun of people who took LSD...

Date: 2006/01/28 06:34:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Those subnormal morons over at After The Bar Closes are nothing but a bunch of gossiping barnyard hens. If they had an ounce of spine they would be after me instead of DaveScot

Sounds to me like Old Man Davison is mostly just jealous of all the attention Dave is getting...

Hey! Let's ask him what happened in the mid-1980's that made him switch from mainstream biology research to anti-evolution crankery! That subject seems to make him very testy...

Date: 2006/01/28 06:39:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2006,12:33)
I should hope so. But with creationists I can never tell. This classic is perfectly serious:

Don't laugh, I'd bet Heddle and Carol both literally believe that...

Date: 2006/01/28 07:21:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
To me, the most noticeable jump seems to happen after 1987:

1969.   Activation of the ephippial egg in Daphnia pulex.
       Journal of General Physiology, 53: 562-575.

1973.   Population growth in planaria: Dugesia tigrina (Gerard):
       Regulation by the absolute number in the population.
       Journal of General Physiology, 61: 767-785.

1976.   Hydra hymanae: Regulation of the life cycle by time
       and temperature.  Science, 194: 618-620.

1984.   Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism.
       Journal of Theoretical Biology, 111: 725-735.

1987.   Semi-meiosis and evolution: a response.
       Journal of Theoretical Biology, 126: 379.

then after this, the slide starts:

1993.   The blind alley: its significance for evolutionary theory.
       Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), 86-1: 101-110.

1998.   Evolution as a self-limiting process.
       Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), 91-2: 199-220.

1999.   An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change.
       Offered for publication.'s not a good sign when your titles include the word 'manifesto' in them.

Date: 2006/01/28 08:21:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 28 2006,14:13)
Our in house pet masochist, Alan Fox, has done exactly what I wanted him to do. Look at the wonderful responses he has been able to evoke there at "After The Pub Shuts Down." I am especially grateful that the #### fool listed my publications at least through the seventies which include three single authored papers in Science one of the most widely read and respected science journals in the world. Who at Panda's Thumb can claim as much I wonder? Who at Panda's Thumb has published anything of note anywhere? It is pretty hard to tell as they hide behind their cowardly aliases while they spew thir mindless viriol, glued to their bar stools congratulating each other over their knowledge of an event that has never been witnessed.

Thank you once again Alan Fox for proving once more to be my greatest ally as well as by, in so doing, proving also that your IQ must be in the room temperature range.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"Davison is the Darwinians'worst nightmare."
Terry Trainor

Alan Fox just proved it.

"Since God found it necessary to limit man's intelligence, why didn't he also limit his stupidity?
Konrad Adenauer

Beats me Konrad. Ask Alan Fox. He knows everything.

11:15 AM

Davison sounds much happier now.

Date: 2006/01/28 14:10:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 28 2006,20:06)
I've been following this guy Davison for quite some time and I have to tell you he is no dummy. He has a mastery of the classical evolutionary literature. Quite frankly I believe he has put forth a darn convincing scenario that evolution is finished and probably will not ever resume. He is also convinced that sexual reproduction can't perform even speciation at least in the lab.He keeps putting out challenges and nobody responds to him. I am no expert but I have the feeling he is onto something pretty darn revolutionary. From what he said over at his blog I doubt if he would return to Panda's Thumb even if you invited him. He seems pretty hostile to me. I think it would darn interesting if he did. Hells bells - why not ask him?

How do you like them little green apples, John?

Date: 2006/01/29 05:52:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 29 2006,09:58)
There is some other person posting as O. Johnson and I am going to ignore him. I recommend you do the same thing. I don't know what kind of a forum you are running here but you sure don't have much in the way of security. I came here to give you guys some advice about this Davison chap. It looks to me like you aren't interested which suits me fine. Alan Fox seems to have visited Wikipedia or some other stupid source and insists on avoiding the issues with Davison. So does everybody else here as near as I can tell. I am not impressed with the way Panda's Thumb reacts to criticism. Neither is my wife who is a professional biology teacher. If all you are going to do is throw rocks at him, you don't need me. Have a nice day

How do you like those malted milk balls, John?

Date: 2006/01/29 06:30:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 29 2006,12:20)
Im completely he claiming that somebody hijacked his account?  Or is he claiming that someone is knocking off his account?

Working theory: all of the 'O. Johnson' posts in fact come from John Davison, who clearly has WAY too much time on his hands.

How do you like them golden delicious apples?

Date: 2006/01/29 08:19:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Please, John: see your doctor first thing Monday morning and have him double your dosage. For all of our sakes.

How do you like them stuffed bell peppers?

Date: 2006/01/29 08:42:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 29 2006,14:35)
I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.

I would not call their latest postings 'arguments' so much as attacks of Tourette's syndrome.

Date: 2006/01/29 09:30:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 29 2006,15:05)
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?

well, it depends; does he give 'Judge Johnson's' first name?  :p

Date: 2006/01/29 10:15:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 29 2006,16:10)
Check out Comment #10 in the following thread at UD:  Stephen Meyer in Daily Telegraph

Well, fellow Evilutionists?  Are we ready to provide a step-by-step explanation for how a wingless mammal evolved into the albatross?  According to Dembski's Dittoheads, that's exactly what's necessary to explain the appearance of design in albatross wings.  So who's ready to go?

None of us have the ability to demonstrate how a species of bird evolved from a mammal.  Therefore, that bird must have been specially created.  No other possibility exists.  Clearly another astonishing win for ID.  Curses, we've been foiled again!

Okay, I'll be the first to say it:

if we're descended from albatrosses, how come we still have albatrosses??

Date: 2006/01/29 10:32:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 29 2006,16:25)
[quote=Caledonian,Jan. 29 2006,16:10]None of us have the ability to demonstrate how a species of bird evolved from a mammal.

I didn't know that we were supposed to be the ancestors of the albatrosses.  :0
I'm sorry, I got this backwards. I should have read more closely.


If albatrosses are descended from us, how come we still have us???

Date: 2006/01/30 06:36:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 30 2006,10:57)
And IDer would tell you "intelligent design" does not mean "optimum design" which is their way of saying "God moves in mysterious ways" which is another way of denying the inherent immorality of their religious mythology.  

The usual reaction of an IDC advocate when presented with an example of suboptimal design is to say that such arguments are simply irrelevant to the discussion. When you press them as to WHY this is irrelevant, they can't say 'God works in mysterious ways', so they say something about how ridiculous such arguments are. When pressed further about why it's ridiculous, they change the subject or disappear. I think 'Donald' at PT pulled that little rhetorical maneuver earlier this month.

Date: 2006/01/31 05:49:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
One thing I really find unfathomable about UD is how DaveScot repeatedly abuses and bans everyone there, and yet they always come back, grovelling and begging to be let back in. All these frustrated creationists, all so upset that they're banned from a cheesy garage outfit like UD. Why they all think they need to belong in a club like that, no matter how shabbily they're treated, is beyond me.I guess it's because it's all they have. They're on this Mission From Jesus to Defeat the Wicked Evilutionists, and it's the only 'club' they have. I guess they figure that however much of a tyrannical nutjob DaveSpringer/Scot/Otto is, God wants them to stick with it.

Plus, it is funny how when these people come onto PT and start arguments they always whine about how they're treated, but when they get much worse treatment at UD, they suck it right up.  :p

Date: 2006/01/31 07:10:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 31 2006,13:00)
For example, do you think we can learn anything from this rant on UD?

Agreed. I think Davison's 'manifestos' are far more about him wrestling with his own cranky internal demons than about any kind of external reality that others can observe.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:25:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,13:57)
Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?

I've seen several banned people pop up again a day or two later. Maybe there's an implicit policy that banning is only temporary for IDC types -- sort of a disciplinary smack on the wrist to keep them in line. Maybe it's only permanent for us evilutionists.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:30:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 31 2006,14:24)
Oh man you gotta love governors who moonlight as scientists.  Someone needs to send Gov Sanford to Dave Scott for some schooling on common descent.

S.C. governor OK with intelligent design

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 31 (UPI) -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he believes intelligent design should be taught in his state's public school classrooms.

In a Sunday appearance on a WIS-TV program, Sanford said there's nothing wrong with presenting students with alternatives to the theory of evolution.

"I think that it's just ... that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about," Sanford said.

Intelligent design posits life on earth is too complex to be explained by evolutionary theory alone.

"The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

But College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr. criticized the governor for his statements. They told the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier there aren't "chinks in the armor of evolution," and Sanford's citation of the second law of thermodynamics was also incorrect.

The intelligent mosquito theory is a new one to me...

I think this is the most delightful part of the governor's quote:

you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

"Like, I think I overhead my pastor saying something about, you know, that 'thermodynamics' stuff. That's scientific, isn't it?" :D

Date: 2006/02/01 04:25:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 01 2006,09:56)
Oh, DaveScot - since we know you're reading this: you're confusing Russell Doolittle with W. Ford Doolittle. Of course, being intimately familiar with all this literature, and with that 153 IQ of course, you probably knew that and just made a slip of the keyboard.

Did he also tell you...? He used to work at Dell.  :p

Date: 2006/02/01 06:24:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 01 2006,10:58)
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!


I know it's not really important, but what is 'Mad Sal' even talking about here? Is he fantasizing about finding some secret message in human DNA, a la the Da Vinci code? Some feverish scenario of 'secularist' scientists (it'd have to be them, the IDCers do no actual research) bumping into some repeating code that turns out to be Ancient Hebrew?

What would the messages say?

"The World is only 6,000 years old!"
"The NCSE is the antichrist!"
"How Come We Still Have Monkeys?"
"Vote Republican!"
"Come Home, Your Mother Ship Needs You!"

He's right, if this happened, Darwinism "will dead" forever...

(Have I missed something, or has Sal totally dropped out of PT since Dover?)

Date: 2006/02/01 07:09:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 01 2006,12:54)
Actually....I think you guys are misunderstanding Sal's claim

Sal, from my understanding, is talking about decoding genetics.  In other words, being able to use genetics as a programming language.

His reasoning, which is flawed, is that if genetics contains a "language" of sorts.....then it would be proof of a designer.  

This is just another ID guy who doesnt understand the difference between random and Evolution

I'm not positive that's all Sal means. Note the following part of his wishlist:

thus decode lifes hidden messages,

So deep down I think Sal is hoping this 'code' would validate all the things he wants to believe.

He'd better be careful... what if the code is in Sanskrit and says "Praise Krishna! The Universe is 3 Trillion Years Old!"

Or, what if it's in Esperanto, and it says:

Earthlings! You have displeased your extraterrestrial overlords! We shall leave Alpha Centauri immediately, and when we arrive, we shall exterminate your puny planet!

Sal better be careful what can of worms he opens here...

Date: 2006/02/02 04:31:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Tim Hague @ Feb. 02 2006,05:46)
[quote=stevestory,Feb. 01 2006,10:38]Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know.

Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID ;)

For the record, back in December at PT, I pointed out how a disproportionate number of ID types have always been engineers, and speculated on what it is about engineering that should make this so. It got a rather, uh, irritated response from some of the non-crackpot engineers who frequent PT.  ??? But, hate to say it, it is a real trend!

Also retired property managers. Lot of them, too.

Date: 2006/02/02 06:30:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 02 2006,12:10)
Crazy talk?  WTF??

tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!;). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

Red Reader never disappoints. I can see he's had his caffeine this morning.

For the record, this line was especially funny:

They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge;

Remove the word 'purposeless' and you have a very succinct description of the ID mindset. Me thinks I detect a bit of projection here...

Date: 2006/02/02 12:40:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (JMax @ Feb. 02 2006,16:39)
Dr. Kent Hovind, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on science and the Bible

I hear he can also levitate, cure diseases with the touch of his hand, helped the US design the atomic bomb, and single-handedly wrestled John Wilkes Booth to the ground when the police had him cornered. Also, he can transcend space and time, and some claim he created Jupiter's moons.

Oh yes, and he once killed an allosaurus with his bare hands.

Date: 2006/02/05 06:01:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 04 2006,15:56)
The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies.

Not really. Most of them are actually secular dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, pre-war Iraq). There are only a couple outright theocracies, if you define theocracy as a country where the entire government mandates religion (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran). But as has been pointed out, they're secular with massive religious overtones, more than any modern Western country experiences, where mostly the government uses religion as an outlet to keep the public from rebelling about anything important. But I agree, a lot of this might be an inability to grasp the fact that the governments of the European countries can't be behind this, that this is just private citizens doing things that offend them. Except of course, they found some American Muslims who are pissed off too, and presumably Americans would be able to see this concept. So a lot of it just seems to be herd mentality coupled with an intolerance of anyone badmouthing your religion that would have been normal in the West say, 500 years ago.

Date: 2006/02/05 06:04:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,01:05)
avocationist time to leave too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/

Well, I'm not welcome at UD any more. Who will talk to me?

Um, I don't think that counts as an official, DaveScot-style banning.  ;)

Date: 2006/02/05 09:09:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2006,14:02)
Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.

Most people these days seem to think 'ad hominem' means 'said something mean'.

DaveSpringer of all people should be a little more restrained about throwing around that accusation...

Date: 2006/02/06 06:31:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Feb. 06 2006,10:49)
I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:

This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

How juvenile.

What must it be like to be an IDC freak who takes himself seriously and who realizes that buffoons like this are the best they can do? That this is THE best 'science blog' that IDC has? In the back of their brains, aren't they embarrassed to realize their side can't do any better than this?

And yet they stick with them anyway and keep coming back.

I know, they deserve each other.

Date: 2006/02/06 06:34:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Feb. 06 2006,10:44)
I read that yesterday (I get the WaPo) and this part really stuck out for me...

Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution." Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.

"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," Crocker said. Besides, she added, she saw her role as trying to balance the "ad nauseum" pro-evolution accounts that students had long been force-fed.

So, when they talk about "teaching the controversy" this is what they really mean.

Crocker is the perfect, quintessential, socratic model of an 'intelligent design scholar'. A walking stereotype and a pathological liar all rolled into one.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:33:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2006,17:36)
[quote=tiredofthesos,Feb. 06 2006,05:25]Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

 Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.

I don't know what tiredofthesos is alluding to, but there are, shall we say, disquieting indications that 'racist' might well be a fair description of GoP. The main occasion I know of where he didn't hide this real well was here:  

(see message 62581, about halfway down)

...where he references a study from a couple of white supremacists, apparently in order to show that America's high crime rate has nothing to do with its high rate of Christianity, but due to its 'ethnic composition'

See comment #62626 for a dissection of his source, two people behind American Renaissance, 'a white-supremacist magazine and website'.

(GoP will probably protest that they're not 'white supremacists', but merely 'white nationalists'. He seems to think this is an important distinction.)

So the racism charge is not groundless.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:55:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Oh yes, and Dean Morrison also took GoP to the mat for it HERE:;st=10

I personally am not really impressed with his argument 'Jews are not a race, they're an ethnic group', so therefore hating Jews wouldn't be racism. Read it and judge for yourself.

Date: 2006/02/06 16:37:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Feb. 06 2006,20:33][/quote]
My original response was due to Stephen Eliot's reaction to Tiredofthesos. Tired might be responding to something I'm not aware of, but I was letting SE know the background on this that I'm aware of, since it seemed like he hadn't heard of this whole issue. Everything I cited is all quite recent and half of it happened here at AtBC. It's all public record.

I still find it very troubling that you seem to see no problems with using Jared Taylor's work, and that you actually make excuses for him like that 'nationalist'/'supremacist' distinction. The only people I've seen who find distinctions like that so important are people who are essentially racist in all meaningful senses of the word. Moreover, I find it troubling that in response to allegations of racism, your reflex has always been to attempt to redefine the term, and then, having done so, claim the term now doesn't apply to you. I am quite sorry if my message implied that you're antisemitic (that was actually unintentional), but I've seen that argument too many times -- "I can't stand X group, but X group technically doesn't constitute a 'race' (a just about meaningless term anyway, as I'm sure you know), so therefore I'm not racist". It's very weaselly, which I suspect you know. And while I'm glad to hear you don't "believe in mental differences among the races", that sounds like another way to dodge answering the question straightforwardly, since I don't consider that to be an essential definition of 'racist'. But hey, I'm not saying it's your job to convince me of what you do or don't believe.

Do I have to agree with someone before I can cite his work?

This is a disingenuous question. If you were to ask me if you should cite the physics research of a man who turned out to abuse his childen or beat his wife, I would say, well, yes, that background is very unfortunate, but not really relevant. His home life doesn't intersect with his work, or reflect on its veracity. However, that's different from citing work by a white 'separatist' explaining how America's crime problems are due to race. In a case like that we are quite justified in doubting such a person's veracity or objectivity, due to his background.

But just to humor you - let's say I'm the most dreadful race-baiting and antisemitic cretin imaginable.

Not what I said, besides I'm willing to concede you're not antisemitic. ;)

Does this change the fact that many of our immigrants want to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture?

No, but that's a separate issue.

Does bring the victims of terrorism back to life, or rebuild skyscrapers?

Um, no, I never claimed it would do either of those things, but last I checked, you weren't proposing any way to accomplish those feats either. So that 'objection' seems remarkably irrelevant.

I've shared my ideas on immigration policy - share yours. I promise to hold myself to a higher standard of criticism than you have....

I wasn't talking about immigration policy, and the original posts of yours I cited weren't about immigration either. Again, this is a separate issue. But checking, I didn't see you offering a solution to Europe's immigration problems, either.

However, since you want me to comment on it, I do not believe that 'many of our immigrants want[ing] to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture' is a significant problem in America. (At least no more significant than any other American group wanting that.) As for Europe, where this IS far bigger problem than in America, I haven't a clue what ought to be done about that (I didn't say I did). The problems seem intractable to me, as tangled up as they are in religion and entrenched economic segregation. I do not believe that Europe should give an inch on freedom of speech, except that I think that incitements to violence are intolerable. But on the other hand, deliberately antogizing groups known to be hypersensitive about their religion is stupid. Obviously some kind of effort in economically integrating Europe's immigrants is essential to making them think they have some kind of stake in the well being of the country they live in. But I'm not even convinced that's possible.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:59:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ Feb. 07 2006,09:42)
Is this Christian Intelligent Design advocate a liar or just ignorant on a wholesale level?

Why do these need to be mutually exclusive?

I think it comes from the venerable 'just make stuff up' school of ID scholarship.

Date: 2006/02/07 06:17:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2006,16:35)
Behe is joining the "Judge Jones is a naughty word" campaign.  Read his nonsense
Here (pdf file)

I am astonished Behe is defending his testimony.  The DI must have made him do it.  I think most everyone outside of the ID cult is fully aware that Dr Behe is a garden variety quack.

He had to do something. His whole book-selling and consulting career is on the line here. He seems to be grooming himself to be a more upscale version of Kent Hovind.

And remember, people 'outside the ID cult' are not his target audience. I doubt he cares about us anymore.

Date: 2006/02/13 19:05:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 13 2006,05:46)
pim van meurs who do not even say his whole name anymore and go only by initial pvm...who have no entry in panda thumb contributor list...

look like whoever got him good scandal material...pim van meur is designated attack dog for all "reputable" scientist who need maintain veneer of propriety since they unlike pim have reputation to protect...

This would indicate to me that 'phishyphred' is the same troll named 'whoever' currently incoherently harassing Pim over at PT. He acts more straightforwardly like Davison there, and less like someone suffering from some untreated head injury.

If these are the most formidable opponents evolution theory has, I think we're in a pretty good position.

Date: 2006/02/14 05:07:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (guthrie @ Feb. 14 2006,10:45)
I believe DAvison retired in 2000, as an emeritus professor.  That seems good going for someone allegedly Sternberged in 1986.  Anyone want to ask him for evidence?

Maybe his martyrdom was retroactive. It took 14 years to take effect. Meanwhile he continued to be employed and to write daffy 'manifestos' the whole while. Rather a wimpy martyrdom.

Can someone explain to me what it means to be 'sternberged'?

Date: 2006/02/15 08:12:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (tacitus @ Feb. 15 2006,13:42)
By the way, Carol, the reason no one believes the people who claim to have lived 150 years is simply because it is not biologically possible. Even given perfect health the human body simply wears out. 120 years is just about the limit, with only a tiny number eking out a few more months.

We may be able to defeat that limit in the near future through medical research, but in the meantime the oldest people in the world remain between 110-120.

Oh good god, PLEASE don't open this can of worms with Carol! We've been thru exactly this argument with her & Heddle several times, and I can tell you with great confidence what her position is. She'll no doubt word it in a more flowery or pretentious way than this, but essentially, their position is that Methuselah did indeed make it to 900-whatever years of age, and that there's nothing unscientific about him being that old, because it was a miracle. And the fact it was a miracle makes it possible. By some, uh, miracle, Biblical miracles are outside the realm of science, and yet they also don't contradict science either, because they're miracles. So the total scientific accuracy of the Old Testament is untouched. Got it?

If you press her hard enough, she'll probably come up with some kind of angry response about how people could have just lived longer lives back then, and that it's up to us to prove they didn't. So there.

Believe me, this has been tried before and it is a total waste of time. Carol has a completely self-contained cosmology into which no contradictory information can enter.

Heddle does the exact same thing, except with more of a pseudo-scientific spin, and without the 'you-just-aren't-translating-the-Hebrew-right' shtick.

Date: 2006/02/15 09:46:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 15 2006,15:44)

If the Biblical flood was only a local event; Why did Noah need an Arc? Could he not have just moved? Would not the animals have re-populated the area after the waters receded?

Moreover, if it was just a local event, why should we care whether it happened at all?

Date: 2006/02/15 13:36:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 15 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
Sure, but does it teach us better if it actually happened?

Myths are myths.

Indeed: if it didn't happen and I'm not Jewish, why should I 'harken'?

I have a whole volume of Native American creation legends in translation on my bookshelf; why are they any less worthy of 'harkening'? They're certainly far more interesting, if it comes to that...

Date: 2006/02/16 04:37:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Renier @ Feb. 16 2006,08:39)
I would just like to point out that the Sumerians had a Flood story/myth. These people predated good 'ol Abram by many moons. Now, Carol, is it possible that Abraham might have been influenced bu this much older religion, and therefore based the new religion that he started on the old Sumarian religion. This would explain the flood myth.

I've also heard there's good reason to believe that the Abrahamic religions originally got the whole concepts of monotheism and satan from Zoroastrianism.

A lot of naive theologians work off the assumption that Judaism was somehow the 'first religion', or at least that it owed nothing to other religions that came before it. That ain't the way these things happen....

Date: 2006/02/16 04:44:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 16 2006,09:13)
It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?),

Um, you don't want to know...   ???

Date: 2006/02/16 14:43:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 16 2006,20:25)
We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

Good god.

So, what, since the whole biology thing didn't work out, is their new strategy to parasitize mathematics, like a remora on a shark?

This guy seems quite unaware that there isn't even enough ID theory to fill a single class in 'design theory', far less a whole minor...

Date: 2006/02/18 10:56:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 18 2006,14:40)
First, read this really interesting Discover story, then go have a good laugh at DaveScot's asinine comments about it.

Um, except for his inane '*yawn', I couldn't find DS's comments. What did he say?

Date: 2006/02/18 13:20:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Wasn't there a paper published a couple years ago where someone demonstrated that hidden messages a la the 'Bible Codes' could also just as easily be gotten out of Moby Dick? I wonder if Dembski would then have to ascribe religious significance to that book as well...

Date: 2006/02/20 10:55:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 20 2006,12:54)
From UD - “The Center of the Bible”

According to Dembski,
Christians may appreciate this; secularists will be sure to dismiss it
if I were a Christian I'd be insulted that Dembski would assume I am so naive to accept such obvious nonsense.

(You have to click your mouse for each step in the slide show. )

My computer wouldn't run the slide show. What exactly was this?

Doesn't this kind of trample all over DaveSpringer's quest to convince people religion has nothing to do with ID?

Date: 2006/02/20 10:58:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,15:47)
Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

Splendid! Do I have your permission to start using that one?  :D

Date: 2006/02/20 11:41:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Ooowee, speaking of burning bridges, Davison just called DaveScot 'Texas White Trash'. Yow.

hey, pass that popcorn down this way...  


Date: 2006/02/26 07:16:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
The mighty Culture Warrior DaveScot:

We don't have any research, we don't have a theory, we don't have peer-reviewed scientific literature, we can't agree on whether the earth is 6,000 or 5 billion years old, we can't predict anything, 99.99% of all biologists laugh at us, our supporters are all angry cranks and religious fanatics, we have to pretend to be victims of persecution and martyrdom to hide our lack of accomplishments, but just you wait til we sic the Supreme Court on you, then you'll be sorry you made fun of us!! :p

Date: 2006/02/27 05:12:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
That is a severely repellent website in general, tho it's nice to see that someone at the LA Times really seems to have it in for ID.

Odd, too, since the LA Times editorial page took a hard rightwing turn recently and they hired a lot of idiots. So I'd expect much more 'teach the controversy and let the kids decide for themselves' nonsense.

Date: 2006/02/27 12:10:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 27 2006,17:36)

OMG is this for real? anyone know?

Sorry to say, yes it's real. It's been up there, and with almost no visitors, ever since his 'other career' became common knowledge.

It's mystifying to me how such a ridiculous person can take himself so seriously, but he's nowhere near interesting enough to stick around and find out.

Date: 2006/02/28 07:06:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 28 2006,11:25)
If the Supreme Court gets an ID case, it's going to be a unanimous decision...a decision DaveScot isn't going to like very much.
No, I don't think so. Thomas and Scalia will vote for creationism. Roberts and Alito might, I haven't seen enough of them.

Besides, judges aren't crazy about cavalierly overturning rulings of previous judges, especially if the ruling is recent and especially if the judge can't be painted as some kind of wild-eyed radical liberal. The fundies are trying to paint Jones that way, but no one's buying (no one important, anyway). So I suspect you're right, Scalia/Thomas will be eager to vote in ID purely for their own ideological reasons, but I doubt enough of the rest of the SCOTUS will have any stomach to overturn Dover, especially since Jones's ruling was so incredibly meticulously explained. They might decline to even hear any case about ID.

Also, despite Springer's attempt to wed the issue of abortion to creationism/ID, they're not related. Granted, the fundies all agree on both those issues, but many of the more reality-based conservatives dislike both ID and abortion. So while I'm not terrifically optimistic about the future of reproductive rights in the US, Springer's attempts to piggyback ID onto abortion are bogus.

Incidentally, does anyone here other than me find it REALLY pathetic that Dave Springer and the whole ID crowd basically have nothing to show for several years of banging away, and are now reduced to banking everything on an ideologically based SCOTUS ruling? May I ask how many other scientific schools of thought had to rely on the Supreme Court to rescue them? If ID was so frigging wonderful, wouldn't it have made more progress on its own merits by now?

Date: 2006/02/28 07:48:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

That place has more cranks and wingnuts than Uncommon Dissent.


They seem especially enraged that the situation in Iraq is increasingly being called a 'civil war'. I guess their position is that if the violence in Iraq was ignored and the term 'civil war' was never used, this would indicate a 'lack of bias' and everything over there would be wonderful.

Date: 2006/02/28 07:56:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
How old does Flinkywisty say the Earth is? :p

Date: 2006/02/28 08:25:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"666 E Christ is Lord Street" might have worked better.  ;)

Date: 2006/02/28 13:18:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 28 2006,19:12)
To: The Designer
Re: Bird Flu

Thanks, Big Guy!
Love your work.

Um, yes, I was about to point out that particular unspoken implication...

The Designer did a bangup job with the Ebola virus, too, ya gotta admit.

Anyone want to go onto UD, ask DaveSpringerScotPicoFarad why bird flu was designed, and instantly get banned? There's a one in three chance he'd give us an amusingly crabby response before he deleted the whole interchange...

Date: 2006/02/28 13:22:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[add shot of tumbleweeds bouncing past and sound of wind blowing here]

Date: 2006/03/01 05:36:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (George @ Mar. 01 2006,07:38)
I reckon the Ebola virus is a case of bad design.  Its problem is it kills too quickly.  There's not enough time for it to spread to lots of other people before its host dies.  That's why it only flares up occasionally.  I forget what its reservoir is, but the Hanta virus (similarly lethal) only breaks out when its rodent reservoir experiences big population peaks.

This is of course arguing from the point of view that "better" viruses are those than can spread more copies of their DNA/RNA about the place.

Now the common cold virus- that's the pinnacle of evolution.  Sorry.  Design.

Except traditionally, don't ID types get really irritated at the very mention of 'bad design'? Every IDer I've ever seen seems to think it's an 'invalid concept', tho of course without being able to explain why. The reason of course is that it offends their religious sensibilities -- i.e., 'god couldn't design something badly'. Tho of course they can't say that.

However, presented with something pernicious but really well designed, like the cold virus, they're uncomfortable ascribing 'good design' to that either. That makes no sense either, unless you remember that they're ascribing all this to god, and they can't explain why god would design a disease well, yet they can't admit this is their 'logic'. Clearly 'god works in mysterious ways' is at the back of their minds in all this. Or maybe they think things like the cold virus are the work of the Devil. You know, 'if it's good, god did it, if it's bad, the devil did it, if I can't make sense of it at all, ignore it'.

And yet they claim evolution can't explain any of this. Sigh.

Date: 2006/03/01 05:40:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
It's easier than that. Ask Scot to please tell us what he has accomplished.

And please, no blithering about his time at Dell.

Date: 2006/03/01 08:30:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Is the falling out between Davison and DaveScot still in effect? Or have they decided they need each other?

Date: 2006/03/02 07:46:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Mar. 02 2006,13:28)
Once two competing cognitions are held simultaneously, the individual can be said to be in a state of "cognitive dissonance".

That is the honest people.  Many of the prominent IDers are probably just liars

It's easy to pinpoint fundamentalist christianity as the culprit with the great majority of these people. What's more of a challenge, as Chris Hyland points out, is nailing down the motivation of people who appear not to be religious fanatics, or who seem not to be motivated by a fear of going to he11. I think DaveScot and Davison fall into this category, since I'm not aware that either of them has ever professed to be devout Christians. (Tho maybe they have and I missed it. Anyone know?)

I think in DaveScot's case, his rightwing politics and overinflated ego combined to cause him to spend his retirement shilling for ID. He perceives that liberals believe in evolution, so that makes the 'opposite of evolution' correct. And his time at Dell seems to have lamentably convinced him that he's inherently much smarter than any of them egghead scientists, no matter how little he may know. But bottom line, I suspect his politics drove him to it.

With Davison it's harder to nail down. Anyone in academia can tell you there is a very familiar phenomenon of the elderly retired professor who veers off into crackpottery due to a combination of a sense of infallibility, unfocused anger and bitterness, a desire to contradict all one's peers, and a perhaps age-induced inability to discern between good ideas and bad ideas. There are plenty of stories of scholars who did great work in their 30's or 40's, maybe even won a Nobel prize, and then descended into embarrassingly public lunacy in their 70's. I think that's where our Davison lands.

Date: 2006/03/02 10:49:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Mar. 02 2006,15:25)
I think DaveScot and Davison...

Whoa, whoa!
I thought we were talking about 'smart people.'

True enough. Well, there seems to be evidence that once upon a time Davison used to be smart.

Date: 2006/03/03 04:23:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hey, Pico, a week or two ago, Davison called you 'Texas White Trash'. Since he's so smart, do you agree with this sentiment? And is he allowed to post at UD again?

If you want to salvage a little bit of dignity, you probably shouldn't fault others for unfairly banning people. Moreover, unlike your website, your messages will still be here in a year.

Date: 2006/03/04 06:16:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Wow. She mentions god 8 times, and even fits in a reference to Jesus. If it hadn't been explained to me so convincingly that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, I'd be horribly confused right about now.

Oh yes, and the random sets of phrases ALL IN CAPS convince me even further we're dealing with a calm, rational person who's thought thru the issues in an objective way.

Date: 2006/03/04 06:26:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 04 2006,12:20)
This 2LoT tomfoolery is the starkest example I've seen of the "God in the Fog" approach.

Anyone who has earned a passing grade in high school physics knows the law does not say what Mr. Anderson says it says. (Otherwise, the formation of every snowflake would require divine intervention.)

But they manage to generate thousands of words on this fascinating "new tangent of [their] ongoing self-delusion dialogue", fogging up the issue so that - even if there are no real gaps for a god-of-the-gaps to inhabit - there's plenty of fog in which a god-in-the-fog might be hiding.

I think IDC types like the 2LoT so much because it's a cheap and easy way to sound real scientific-like, and momentarily have something to say that doesn't quote Genesis.

Who cares if they get it all wrong? WE'RE not their target audience.

Date: 2006/03/04 07:35:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2006,13:27)
Well, he made some interesting comments in that fiasco, where he said, intelligently, 'look, arguing against common descent is complete idiocy, we can't justify it as science, and we'll lose lose lose if we don't jettison it' and shortly after that he got shouted down by Discovery Instituters like Paul Nelson who argue against common descent. So there's a good chance he's pissed off and depressed about the movement. Anybody who's not totally deluded can see what's happening to the ID Titanic.

This is the inevitable outcome of a 'scientific movement' that literally agrees on nothing except 'some stuff is designed'.

Date: 2006/03/04 08:31:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2006,14:08)
I think Alan noticed something real. DaveScot is just not the hyperactive baninator he used to be, baninating the countryside, baninating the peasants, baninating all the people and the thatched-roof cottages...

Uh oh. We're not on the verge of UD becoming boring again, are we?

Date: 2006/03/04 09:00:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (tacitus @ Mar. 04 2006,14:45)
The Disco institute is in no danger of collapse.  Despite its repeated failures, there are simply too many "true believers" out there with deep pockets for it to fold any time soon.

I keep getting this mental image of the DI as some kind of big hulking monster which has has its head lopped off, yet which still keeps lurching around, due to some combination of momentum, nervous reflexes and animosity.

Date: 2006/03/04 10:43:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Oh, GREAT, give the other side ideas, why don't you...

Date: 2006/03/04 11:07:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 04 2006,17:01)
Maybe, after the pendulum swings back and the country realizes that the Bush administration was the worst thing that has ever happened, the religious right will face the fact that that was as close as they'll ever come to actually running the country, and revert to their secessionist mentality.

Here's a letter that appeared in the
the Columbus Dispatch this week:
Public schools immoral places for children
Monday, February 27, 2006

In December, I submitted a resolution to the State Convention of Baptists in Ohio, urging pastors and parents to investigate the indoctrination of our young people into the homosexual agenda and to encourage concerned Christian parents to remove their children from public schools.

At the heels of the recent 11-4 decision by the State Board of Education to censor any criticism of Darwinian evolution, it has become clear that our young people are being indoctrinated into not only a pro-homosexual, but a humanistic religion, as well. Ohio schools have become officially atheistic, godless and toxic, morally, intellectually and spiritually, to our precious children. Ohio evangelical leaders and pastors must urge parents to remove their children from Pharoah’s oppressive schools and give them a thoroughly Christian education, through either Christian schools or home education. Why send them to Sunday School, only to have their faith torn asunder Monday through Friday? It is time to let the children go.

NICHOLAS A. JACKSON Executive director,
Reform America Ohio coordinator,
Exodus Mandate

I'm cool with letting all those people leave the country. Give them some chunk of South Carolina or north Florida that no one wants, let them have their 'exodus', and put a huge fence around it.

Watch the national elections suddenly start going Democrat. Sounds like a small price to pay.


Date: 2006/03/05 14:20:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Where's the worst Barnes and Noble? And why is it the worst?

Date: 2006/03/05 14:26:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
There are plenty of similarities between the two 'theories'. And of course, let's not forget Larry F/Andy H over at PT, who is not only a Holocaust 'revisionist' but a Confederate apologist.

Date: 2006/03/06 16:21:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Which brings me to this question: Is this just me or do you get the same thing?

I'm confused -- do we get the same *what*?

Date: 2006/03/07 08:19:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
DaveScot should be grateful for this thread -- I mean, as much as we make fun of him, who ELSE is going to correct his myriad of fundamental scientific errors? Josh Bozeman? Salvador??

"it's the only way you'll learn..."

Date: 2006/03/07 08:28:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"Dave, this hurts me more than it hurts you..."

Date: 2006/03/09 04:56:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 09 2006,09:45)
Now DaveSLOT thinks that Panda's Thumb drove these students to set fire to churches.  I just wonder if they violated the 2nd law in the process.

I think Dave really wanted the Alabama church fires to be the work of a bunch of gay black moslem liberals. Poor Dave.

Date: 2006/03/09 05:05:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 09 2006,10<!--emo&:0)
College students and hate speech directed at religion abounds on Panda’s Thumb and you know it. All the dopey Dawkins “religion is the root of all evil” fans are drawn to it like flies to shi bees to flowers. I suggested the perps were probably exactly the kind of anti-religion zealots that Panda’s Thumb attracts. That’s neither gratuitous or unwarranted. -ds

I think our Dave is losing it. Not that he had much to begin with.

Okay, let's run down his impeccable I-used-to-work-for-Dell logic:

1) Panda's Thumb has many posters who are anti-religion.

2) I like to think the Alabama church fires were the work of people who were anti-religion.

3) therefore, Panda's Thumb is responsible for the Alabama church arson fires.


This seems to support my personal theory that Dave's whole shtick is REALLY driven by his rightwing politics -- not religion, and certainly not science.

Also, his swipe at 'college students' is bizarre...

Date: 2006/03/09 10:25:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
The resemblance between ds and Bill O'Reilly is uncanny:

You're right, it is. In fact, I'd bet money DaveScot is a big O'Reilly fan and copies Bill's 'debating style'. (I.e., both people think successful bullying is the same thing as being correct.)

Date: 2006/03/09 10:38:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 09 2006,16:34)
Wow I'm in group 1, I feel so special ???. I guess it's because I dont post there that often.

Hey, get yourself onto group 2 or 3 PRONTO, or you'll lose all your street cred here!   :p

Date: 2006/03/09 10:58:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Um, yes, I'm pretty sure 'SirRamicCap' is DaveScot in another of his cheesy guises. Tho how he's managing to keep his Tourette's syndrome in check long enough to post here is beyond me.

Hey Dave! Davison says you're Texas White Trash! You said yourself he's a genius, is he right about that??   :D

Date: 2006/03/09 12:22:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Might anyone know why Larry's Holocaust revisionism and other such nonsense is staying at PT, despite his endless violations of PT's sockpuppet rules, while my responses to his foolishness are getting bounced to the Bathroom Wall?

Date: 2006/03/09 13:08:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
1) liberal atheists burned down the Alabama churches.
2) Panda's Thumb are all liberal atheists.
3) therefore, Panda's Thumb burned down the Alabama churches.

This is too easy!

Date: 2006/03/09 16:07:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2006,19:06)
Since I'm not doing that bouncing, I don't know.

I assume it was Steve Reuland, since he began the thread, tho he offered no explanation.

Date: 2006/03/10 06:49:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
So the pattern seems to be that Andy/Larry goes unbanned and undisemvowelled no matter what he does (no matter how far off topic he goes, or how many fake names he uses), but anyone responding to him gets bounced here. Am I the only one who finds this incomprehensible?

Date: 2006/03/10 06:55:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 10 2006,12:45)
I think DaveStalin and Bill Dembski burned those churches to later claim PT fans did it.

Sort of a Reichstag fire thing?

Date: 2006/03/10 07:37:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 10 2006,13:14)
OK, I understand. But really, Andy/whoever does perform a function sometimes. He spits out the party line and, when he's on topic, gives those who wish to a chance to point out how ignorant the party line is. Readers who don't comment who might be on the fence can see who the people are they might side with. I personally think that keeping a lighthearted attitude towards Andy/farflungdung/whoever helps the whole PT community by illustrating the whole us/them point. I know that us/them is the black and the white but seriously, how long can you stay in the area occupied by the slash?

I can see your point, but that doesn't explain bouncing everyone who responds to him. Is this Steve Reuland doing this again?

Date: 2006/03/10 10:56:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2006,16:13)
Do I recall correctly that the color of the user id's in this thread indicates if it was posted here directly, or got moved here after being posted someplace that's else?


I see the flow of refugees continues...

Yes, if the name is in red, that means someone bounced it here from PT.

And yes, it is Reuland. He's zapping people left and right and leaving Larry untouched. Amazing.

Date: 2006/03/10 11:05:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Guest @ Mar. 10 2006,16:56)
<quote>I would have thought that moving a whole bunch of comments to the Bathroom Wall would have made it obvious not to feed the troll, but some of you are amazingly thick-headed. One stupid comment does not ruin a thread. One stupid comment combined with 8 people who just can't help but respond ruins a thread. Please, quit ruining my threads.</quote>

Why are you punishing the people who <b>respond</b> to the trolls but not banishing/disemvowelling the trolls themselves? Delete/bounce Larry, the problem goes away. Do it this way, the problem lasts forever.

Now this is interesting. Like 2 minutes after I posted that at PT, it appears here, but at the moment it's still in the PT thread -- but NOT in the list of 'recent comments'. Is it one of those deals where only I can read my posting?

Now I know how all those people who try and post at UD feel.

Date: 2006/03/10 11:16:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2006,17:09)
It turns out that Steve is applying the same rules that go for this BB:


# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.
# MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

Myself, I'd bounce all the inappropriate messages, but that's up to each thread owner.

Also, PT is done via Movable Type. MT generates static pages, so things have to be "rebuilt". This can lead to some odd behavior on the leading edge of current stuff.

There's also a rule saying that sockpuppeting will get you banned, but that rule is ignored.

I see Nick Matzke is also bouncing people here as well. Quite the craze there this week.

Date: 2006/03/10 11:24:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Okay, the other shoe dropped, my post is now totally gone from Steve's thread, but there's a new long post by AD taking Steve to task for how he's handling it. Be interesting to see if Steve makes that posting disappear too.

I'm never posting anything on one his threads again, for one thing.

Date: 2006/03/10 11:59:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?

Wow. Just, wow.

Unless I'm misreading this, Thordaddy seems to be saying is that if 'billions' of people have 'faith' in something, that means it has to be true. And therefore science has to explain it. And that anything believed in with this 'faith' can therefore contradict science.

So this is how he wants to force scientists to accept ID/C -- by saying all these people believe it, so that makes it empirical.

Again, just, wow.

So I suppose this strategy can work with ANY religion, really -- not only would this 'prove' Christianity, but it would equally well 'prove' Islam and Hinduism, Scientology. Any religion, really. Unless TD has some cutoff number of believers necessary to turn faith into a 'fact' -- what would it be, 500 million? A billion?

This reminds me of the Kansas BOE's attempts to redefine science so that it can include the supernatural. Ultimately this is a battle as to who gets to define what truth is, what empericism is, what reality is.

Date: 2006/03/10 13:58:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
You seem to be arguing that "faith" is acquired by some method other than interpreting the empirical evidence and giving that interpretation meaning.  Do you care to elaborate on this method?  

It ain't empericism, that's obvious. People practice whatever religion they were raised in, or they find some belief that makes them feel good, or that is societally rewarded, and they 'believe' it. Whether there's any authentic emperical evidence for its truth is an entirely separate matter.

People believe stuff with no demonstrable basis in reality all the time. In fact, I'd say it's basically the norm of human behavior. If you want  to look at it benignly, things believed in by 'faith' are simply outside the realm of science and empericism. If you want to look at it harshly, they're just deluding themselves. Happens all the time.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim that everyone's religions/superstitions are based on emperical evidence. Silly ass word games and obfuscation won't cut it. ID ain't science, and saying that anything that certain people believe in hard enough somehow becomes true won't make it science. Nice try.

Science and religion/faith are different things. That's why there are different words for the two concepts.

Date: 2006/03/10 14:08:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

If you call junk science a 'method', sure. Distort findings, cherry pick other's research, ignore your errors when they're pointed out to you, and ignore inconvenient facts that would contradict your desired conclusion. Making stuff up (AKA lying) also helps.

As another example, Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."

You tell me: could any method other than the scientific method have brought them to that conclusion?

Date: 2006/03/10 14:42:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2006,20:32)
You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow.

Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed.

Yes, if you doubt for a minute that DaveSpringer deserves the humiliation he undergoes here, refresh your memory with this:

Update: It’s absolutely amazing that so far no commenters here have comdemned what these three men did. They targeted and burned down 9 fundamentalist Christian churches. They terrorized the communities surrounding these churches in so doing. Not to mention the property damage, any of those churches could have had people in them when they were torched and lives would have been lost. Is there no outrage here?

Update 2: To those of you saying PT does nothing to encourage things like this I will remind you of PZ Myers (Panda’s Thumb author and Professor of Biology) saying scientists are not angry enough, not martial enough, and these [Christian fundamentalist] lunatics deserve responses involving righteous fury and butt-kicking. Maybe he got more than he wanted in this church burning incident. Then again maybe that’s just what the doctor ordered.

Update 3: To everyone writing to say I’m asserting that Panda’s Thumb is responsible, that is a straw man. Observe the question mark on the subject line and the original line of text at the top. To all of you who don’t know, a question marks denotes a question, not a statement or assertion.

(Note how by Update 3 he's starting to p1ss up his back, and claim that he wasn't really blaming PT for the arsonists. Ho ho.)

So bottom line, we need not worry about bruising Dave's widdle feelings.

Date: 2006/03/10 17:50:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 10 2006,18:41)
I had some good, on topic posts and they are neither here nor there. But, Arden, make it a game. See what you can get away with! THese musings on the subject are not limited to practicing research scientists. (Maybe you are one). They are reactions and thoughts on the subjects at hand as well as the global subject of the fundementalist attack on the "educated intelligent class of people". So if you want to get back at him, tease him, don't go away mad. Try to stay nominally on topic but look through the historical postings. If you took OT posts out many threads would have no posts at all. It is a broad topic and peevish behavior is to be expected from anyone from time to time.

Too many thoughts! Sorry that was so rambling but I hope you got my point. ???

I think I do get your point, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Check out SR's closing paragraph on the last message of the thread:

It wouldn’t surprise me if there are one or two reasonable comments in the torret of posts that invariably follows one of his random, inane anti-“Darwinist” rants, but I can’t be arsed to pick them out. The whole lot goes. If anyone wants to lodge a complaint about censorship, they can find someone who cares.

'They can find someone who cares.' Jesus, if I wanted to deal with someone like that, I'd argue with DaveSpringer at UD. Leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. Screw it.

Date: 2006/03/11 07:14:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Alright. I have to get this off my chest.

Dave, since I know you read this blog, I have a confession to make. I set fire to those Alabama churches.

Yes, that's right. It was me.

And I was acting on behalf of the Democrat/Jew/homo/liberal/atheist/evolutionist/Muslim conspiracy to undermine the American family. And you're right, PZ Myers and the Panda's Thumb people drove me to it. Before I discovered PT, I was a nice Christian Republican lad who respected the family and who understood that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. PT ruined all that.

Oh yes, PT made me a heroin addict as well. And I now violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on an almost daily basis.

Please don't judge me too harshly.

Date: 2006/03/11 07:49:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Joseph Beres @ Mar. 11 2006,13:37)
I guess "slightly embellished" means "made up stuff that doesn't appear in the actual quote". What the #### is wrong with Dembski?

It's the same as Springer blaming the Alabama arsons on PT. If you're a fundamentalist christian, your statements don't have to actually be literally TRUE, all that matters is that they fit your emotional feelings on the subject, and serve your cause. As far as Dembski is concerned, Kitcher might as well have said that, or would have said it if he was more truthful, so that makes his 'embellishment' true, by his definition.

This conceptualization of 'truth' makes ID somewhat easier to understand.

You know, 'it's all good if you're lying for Jesus'.

Date: 2006/03/11 08:05:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 11 2006,14:00)
Blacks, homosexuals, etc. are inborn characteristics. So it is wrong to negatively stereotype them. Fundamentalism is a set of beliefs, and it is not necessarily bad to condemn a set of beliefs.

But such equivication is only to be expected from fascists like DaveStalin.

Besides, last I heard DaveScot was none too crazy about Muslims. Doesn't that make his complaining about people badmouthing Christians and Jews a tad hypocritical?

Date: 2006/03/11 09:20:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 11 2006,14:51)

Regarding your confession, isn't it also true that you are a card-carrying member of the American Communist Lawyer's Union (ACLU)?  And your photo bears a striking resemblance to someone known to be involved in the assassination of President Kennedy...

Kent Hovind

Dr. Dino:

You've found me out. Mea maxima culpa. And while I'm at it, I might as well admit that I was supposed to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th, not that halfwit from Morocco that they have in custody.

I am also the same person as Cindy Sheehan, and I was the one who actually killed Vincent Foster, at Hilary Clinton's behest. Moreover, I think I had something to do with the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, tho it was a long time ago and my memory is a little hazy.


Date: 2006/03/11 10:06:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (egbooth @ Mar. 11 2006,15:55)
Didn’t your momma teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? Give me her phone number. I want to call her up and tell her what a stupid child she had. -ds

'Your momma'? What, is Dave having some kind of flashback to his past career as a Marine sergeant? Next thing you know he'll be barging in here, calling us all 'maggots', and telling us to drop and give him twenty.

Date: 2006/03/11 10:12:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 11 2006,16<!--emo&:0)
While we're at it, where were you on the date of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction?   And aren't you personally acquainted with Jolene, the shameless hussy who seduced Bobby Sue's husband on episode #633 of the Jerry Springer show?

In Christian humility,
Kent Hovind

As for Janet Jackson, I had nothing to do with that one -- but take my word for it, I could name some names...

As for Jolene, that golddigging skank got what was coming to her, believe you me.

Date: 2006/03/11 11:29:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
OK but wait- If one religion course made the claim that the “Allah of Islam” was different from the “God of the Bible”, that claim could then be tested. And if tested properly would be found to be a false claim.

WHAT THE? ? ? ? How is that supposed to be 'tested'?

Wow.... those people over there at UD think up bizarre sh1t that I could never imagine...

But yes, it is nice to see that once consequence of Dover is that they've dropped the whole nonsense of 'Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism!" They'll take their government-mandated Book of Genesis any way they can get it...

Of course the debate should be taught, and science class is appropriate since that’s where we study reality, as opposed to religion or philosophy courses, where we study opinions. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction between the Darwinian dogma and the historical claims of any branch of Judeo-Christian religion.

Well, there goes my irony meter again. Dang! I just bought it!

Only the wicked.

These guys are just too adorable, the way they never fail to confirm all our stereotypes of them.

Date: 2006/03/11 12:47:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Uh oh. You know things are getting bad when PT starts bouncing Wesley here!  ;)

Date: 2006/03/11 13:46:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

I would ask you again:

Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.

Date: 2006/03/12 06:32:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
“Hitler was atheistic or something similar.”

Let me guess. This is something his pastor told him.

This is an especially nice example of how fundies just assert things as truths because they support their belief systems, while making no attempt to find out if it was, you know, actually true in the real world.

Anyway, fundies never seem to remember this, but not only was Hitler a Roman Catholic (he never renounced it), but the great majority of the Nazi higherups were Christians all their lives, both Catholic and Protestant. Only a very few were atheists or quasi-pagans (Himmler is the main example). Nazi Germany was not an 'atheist state'.

(Let's not even bother with his tedious insinuation that atheists are Nazis. *sigh*...)

Date: 2006/03/12 06:39:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 12 2006,07:31)
This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy.

"So, like, if this was 1967, I'd be RIGHT! So there!"

Date: 2006/03/12 06:51:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 12 2006,06:31)
Arden opines,

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.

Was your second statement correct?  All the concepts in their belief system are either known facts or conceptualization of facts.

Congratulations on a spectacularly weaselly avoidance of answering the question.

'Second statement'? You mean do Scientologists really believe it? Yes, many do.

My other two statements were imperatives, so one cannot ask if they were 'correct' or not.

Your final statement is just so much empty verbiage, and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. I think you realize all you're doing is laying down a smokescreen.

But no matter. I now know everything I need to know about your ability and willingness to actually debate this rationally. Bye.

Date: 2006/03/12 08:59:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 12 2006,14:51)
That use of "opines" seems very familiar to me. Some previous commenter over-used that word. Can't for the life of me think who it was. It wasn't a certain Mr Farfarman, was it?

Thordaddy & Larry F aren't the same person. They have totally different styles. Also, try googling them and comparing the stuff they post to various blogs, and also to the 'letters to the editor' that Larry posts. Very different 'paper trails'.

As far as I can tell, I don't think Larry F has posted here at AtBC yet.

Date: 2006/03/12 11:24:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I've answered your question.

No you did not. You repeated a lot of empty verbiage and mostly just asked questions.

"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence.  Science DOES NOT allow any other process.

Do you draw any distinction between interpreting real or imaginary 'emperical evidence'?

How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

We answered this question already. Most people are whatever 'faith' they were raised in. Or people 'acquire their faith' through societal pressure, or societal approbation. Millions of people maintain their faith by finding false patterns or ignoring evidence that contradicts their faith. (The fact that millions of people passionately believe extremely different faiths makes it pretty much impossible that everybody acquires their faith thru 'interpretation of empirical evidence'.) They interpret random evidence in such a way as to support what they already believe or want to believe. Self-delusion, in other words.

That is not the same thing as interpretation of emperical evidence. If you think it is, prove it by going to see a faith healer next time you become seriously ill.

Date: 2006/03/12 11:29:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Date: 2006/03/12 11:32:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I see the frenzied bouncing is continuing. So this makes 2 people there who do this, Steve Reuland and Nick Matzke. I wonder if this will become the new policy of everyone's threads and whether it will be applied even-handedly...

Date: 2006/03/12 13:14:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
This comment just left me speechless:

It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested.

Let's hope we never lose the advantage of having opponents who are this breathtakingly stupid.

Date: 2006/03/13 04:29:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,08:56)
does it get any better than DaveScot banning someone for describing a YEC? Does anything show the futility and incoherence of their cause? Does anything better show how the Discovery Institute has spent $30 million with nothing to show for it?

Not sure why, but this reminds me of an old political joke they used to tell in the Soviet Union. Two guys are sitting in a cell in the gulag and one asks the other what he's in for. He replies "I called the Premier an idiot". The first guy replies "It's against the law to insult the Premier?" The second guy answers, "No, I'm not in jail for insulting the Premier, I'm in jail for revealing state secrets".

Date: 2006/03/13 05:54:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 13 2006,09:55)
One of the things that does show that ID is not a science is the total inability of its supporters to agree on the story.  Even the most recalcitrant of people who think that the modern sythesis is incomplete, can pay out what they think is wrong and why.  These people cant even agree if its a religious position or not, let alone what the scientific theory of ID is.

ID advocates truly cannot agree on anything. The best statement of this I have seen is the following:

Date: 2006/03/13 10:21:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 13 2006,13:33)
[quote=stevestory,Mar. 12 2006,17:23]Yeah, I really should write up a list of say Top Ten Uncommonly Dense basic science errors.

That would make a great thread all by itself!

Start with a list of ten and add to it as new errors are made.

It would be a start toward providing DaveSpringer with the science education he never bothered to get...  :p

Date: 2006/03/13 10:35:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I missed that: are the church arsonists actually 'Satanists', or is that just some gibberish some Christian website made up because it sounded good?

Anyway, exhibit #847,456 demonstrating that ID is nothing more than Fundamentalist Christian apologetics, as if any of us needed convincing anymore...

In regards to DaveScot & Sal's continuing infantile quest to blame 'evolution' for all the evils of the modern world, I have an observation: has anyone else ever noticed that whenever you see a bunch of crimes committed by teenagers who are supposedly 'Satanists', that the incident always seems to be in some heavy-duty Bible Belt red state area? Also, the 'Satanists' are usually the children of Christian families themselves. If Davey's theories about the evils of liberalism were true, wouldn't all these Satanists come from wicked liberal places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Madison, WI, New York, Boston, etc., and wouldn't they be the children of secular humanists, Jews, Buddhists, etc.?

Date: 2006/03/13 10:40:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2006,12:59)

There is no new policy. Someone under a ban has no expectation that any illicitly entered comment will be retained. Anyone responding to such a comment is engaged in a meta-site issue, and thus those comments fall under Rule 2, and may be removed entirely without notice.


Perhaps the policy isn't new, but lots of people seem not to be aware of the policy (PvM didn't seem to know), and the policy went largely unenforced until just the last few days. That makes it essentially a 'new policy'.

The more people who explicitly know of this policy, the better.

Date: 2006/03/13 10:54:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I just can’t wait to see the results play out from this further bit of idiocy from the loony left that hijacked the Democratic party as they’re now working hard to alienate two of their largest and most loyal remaining political bases - Catholic Hispanic Americans and Baptist African Americans.

Oh yeah, last I heard, George Bush had a whopping 2% approval rating among African Americans. If the GOP manages to crank that up to 4%, we Democrats could really be in trouble!!!

Date: 2006/03/13 10:57:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2006,16:50)

That makes it essentially a 'new policy'.

David Springer sets a bad example of behavior. There is no need to imitate his intransigence on receipt of facts contrary to a claim.

Thanks for the insult, Wes.

BTW, Larry's posting again at Pim's thread. You might want to, um, do something about it.

Date: 2006/03/13 11:49:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,16:42)
Arden, I have relatives who believe both in Answers in Genesis, and in conspiracy theories involving Satanists, so I can answer the questions for you:

Satanists are everywhere. They are rife in the areas you mentioned, among the people you mentioned. Also, they have completely infiltrated the highest realms of power. The president, the UN, the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the FBI are all stuffed with Satanists. And the judiciary. And universities. If you think some piece of evidence x refutes this idea, piece of evidence x was provided by a Satanist.

They even believe that certain other conservatives / conspiracists, like Rush Limbaugh and Bo Gritz, are plants and/or Satanists themselves.

Yes, the policy seems to be that just about everything is Satanic unless proven otherwise. But the theory of Rush Limbaugh and Bo Gritz being Satanists would explain a lot, I have to say... Hmmmm... ;)

Also, these folks really don't like being reminded that there really is no such thing as 'Satanism' outside a Christian context. That is, in order to be a Satanist, you have to essentially have to accept the Christian concept of Satan, and specifically find Christianity compelling enough to rebel against. In other words, Satanism does not make sense as anything except a rogue form of Christianty. That's why Satanism only seems to pop up in conservative Bible Belt areas.

Date: 2006/03/13 12:46:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,18:23)
In my hometown, while I was in high school, there was a grave robbing. The local paper, the Lake City Reporter, mentioned it and I believe pointed to Satanism. Whether or not they did, the community was pretty rapidly in the grips of Satanic Panic. It happens that I knew a guy named Travis, who was the brother of one of the robbers, and I can tell you they were just disaffected, apathetic poor southern aggressive boys. Playing pranks with some skeletons just struck them as a gnarly and extreme thing to do. It was an interesting experience to watch a fairly ignorant evangelical community go apeshit over some bored miscreants.

Precisely. I have a very strong hunch that the church arsonists were exactly 'disaffected, apathetic poor southern aggressive boys', who thought that burning some churches sounded like 'a gnarly and extreme thing to do'. Think Beavis & Bvtthead. The movie the River's Edge captures the ethos very well.
That's it, I've warned you for the last time about Christian bashing. You're outta here.-dt

Date: 2006/03/13 12:51:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,18:43)
Davetard banned someone for saying Paul Nelson is a Young Earth Creationist, a fact admitted to by Paul Nelson.

What a day it's been. May the good (nonexistent) lord provide us a million more.

There won't be a million more for you, you're gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/13 13:57:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,19:35)
Y hv GT t g rd ths ncmmnl Dns thrd. Whn y gt t crnddd's sttmnt tht 'ths r mrgnl clms' y wll fll n th flr lghng.

So who's laughing now?-dt

Date: 2006/03/13 18:14:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
WOW, check this out from Davison's blog. I think we're getting to him:

This is for Arden Chatfield, number one moron at the Bunker. Dave Springer and I have been insulting one another for years. It is a way of life for us. Bright people are like that you stupid turd. You are nothing but an ignorant would be troublemaker. Grow up. If you think I have insulted Springer you ought to see some of the things he has said about me. White Texas trash is nothing. It was just my way of telling him what I thought about banning me from Dilliam Wembski's Fundie Palace. I wouldn't return to that dump if I was paid. My papers are right there anyway . What the #### else would I be needed for?

Where will I find your evolutionary schlock you illiterate goon? You are pathetic.
Touch yourself until you stain yourself. Got that? Write that down.

God but I'm good.

'God but I'm good'? Good WHAT?

The man's senility has gone further than I thought.

He even tries to bait me for the mugshot I have as my avatar! (Which precisely one person here seems to have recognized):

This is for Arden Chatfield over at Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Welsberry's (pronounced Felsberry) crumbling Bunker. I love the full front and profile portraits that accompany each of your sterling comments. On what charge were you booked or would you rather not say?

Anyway, he mentions me like nine times. I seem to be really upsetting him! He even called me 'number one moron'. Do I now have sufficient street cred to join the secret club of wicked secular evilutionists now?  :p
Show John some respect. That man's a genius who's suffered a huge amount of persecution from the liberal academic establishment. You're toast.-dt

Date: 2006/03/14 04:31:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thurdl01 @ Mar. 14 2006,07:34)
Now, I'm new at this whole parsing the UDites thing...

"Dave Springer and I have been insulting one another for years. It is a way of life for us. Bright people are like that you stupid turd."

Now, he says that bright people insult each other, then insults Arden.  Therefore, he considers Arden bright.  Ipso QED.

And yet I'm the 'number one moron'. If I was inclined to take JD seriously I might be confused.
Here's serious for you, hasta la vista.-dt

Date: 2006/03/14 04:38:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2006,01:03)
I wonder why it is that the people most desperately in need of moderation are also the ones most upset when they get it?

Out of curiosity, are you referring to me or John there?

Date: 2006/03/14 04:47:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 13 2006,16:30)

I know how you feel. I was like you once. I couldn't resist John's charm and witty repartee, but I found it was a smokescreen to ensnare me into considering the merits of his PEH. Don't do it. Don't go to ISCID and read that paper. I did and I am only just now being allowed out on my own again. Please feel free to email if you find the urge overwhelming.

yours in recovery

"My name is Arden. And today is my second day without John Davison".

"Hi, Arden!"

Date: 2006/03/14 04:55:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 13 2006,13:34)
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.

Our John sure leaps to a lot of conclusions. As for myself, he feels safe in assuming 'Arden Chatfield' is my real name, that that's my real photo, and that I've never published. Seems a halfway decent scholar would be a tad more cautious about assuming that all his gut hunches are automatically true...

You're right, tho, I'm starting to feel like we are going into a mental ward and laughing at the patients. Dave deserves this, I'm not sure JD really does.

Date: 2006/03/14 10:39:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 14 2006,12:33)
My take: The poll is significant because my opinion (as a lay-person) counts just as much under the Constitution as the opinion of someone in the National Academy. Darwinists, with their elitist mentality, are trying to violate my equal protection RIGHTS under the 14th amendment and have me be ruled by those of a class not recognized in the Constitution: “scientists” (by the Academy definition)

We're trying to 'rule' poor little Ryan??

Lord, he really needs to get over himself.

my opinion (as a lay-person) counts just as much under the Constitution as the opinion of someone in the National Academy.

Splendid. I assume therefore if you assumed Cancer was caused by malevolent pixies, that under the constitution your opinion would 'count just as much' as anyone in the American Medical Association. Expertise is meaningless. The Constitution says so.

Anyway, (a) this is why they don't generally let people with a 7th grade education become judges, and (b) "morons" aren't 'recognized in the Constitution', either.
Only I can do the name calling around here, idiot. There's the door.-dt

Date: 2006/03/14 10:43:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (shi @ Mar. 14 2006,16:40)
As someone commented in this thread, my point is rather simple. Apparently it is only simple to people who got it.

It's your job to be coherent. It's not our job to understand you no matter how you explain yourself.

Date: 2006/03/14 13:59:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"Einstein’s motivation was…that noise could establish the existence of atoms. ”

Good lord, Redreader misinterpreted that as meaning that noise brought about the existence of atoms???

Yeesh, no wonder they try so hard to negate the importance of expertise and learning.

Ryan may be a little dumber, but with UD it's really a race to the bottom...
Strike two, pal.-dt

Date: 2006/03/14 14:13:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I'm surprised no one called Shi on this:

So imagine if the goverment suddenly announces funding for ID, and it is acceptable to believe and research in either, you think evolutionary biologists are all going to turn round and say they didn't believe in 'Darwinism' all along?

You dont think so.  Are you from outer space or just naive?

So, Shi, your assumption must be either:

a) all those scientists don't really believe in evolution, they only claim to because of peer pressure,


b) Once it becomes (more) profitable to do ID research, all the current scientists are going to LIE and claim to believe in ID just to get grants.

Which is it? Since if it's (a) you're quite delusional, and if it's (b), we might have just gotten an interesting glimpse into your view of what scientists are like ethically. Which is a good indication that you aren't one yourself.

Personally, I'm waiting for Shi to come up with the old fave "if humans are descended from apes, why do we still have apes?" argument any minute now...

Date: 2006/03/14 14:18:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 14 2006,20:09)
Oh man, did he actually say that the movement is "right on schedule"?
And I thought he was the smart one of the bunch...

I don't have a copy of the Wedge Document handy at the moment, but I could have sworn their timetable for the Defeat of Empericism was now several years behind schedule. Can anyone check?

Date: 2006/03/14 14:35:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Shi, if you want to be taken seriously, and if you have any thought of publishing what you're working up, I strongly urge you to read up on ring species and to consider their implications for what you're saying. Otherwise, you're going to look a lot like just another crackpot ID/C advocate who repeats discredited talking points and ignores any evidence that causes problems for his theory. I hope you don't want to end up that way.

Date: 2006/03/14 14:56:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Aardvark @ Mar. 14 2006,20:38)
New ID buzzword: "meta-science"

...linking to:

Thus for a methodological naturalist it is perfectly reasonable possibility that in science lessons it will become necessary to teach children what is in fact not true and what is in fact known to be untrue for the sake of meeting the methodological naturalism criteria laid out by the grand assembly of the interplanetary science council.

The real truth can only be taught in a new subject called meta-science lessons and it is a perfectly reasonable possibility in the future for the syllabus in these lessons to contradict the science syllabus and for the meta-science lessons to be teaching the truth and the science lessons to be teaching what is known to be wrong.

Feel free to pile in.

Good lord, are you trying to kill me? Everytime I read that, I think it shortens my lifespan by at least a month...

The real truth can only be taught in a new subject called meta-science lessons

Somehow I'm strongly reminded of those madrassahs they have in the middle east, where all the teaching is 'Islamic'.
ID has nothing to do with Islam, buddy. Strike three, you're out.-dt

Date: 2006/03/14 15:24:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 14 2006,19:48)

You can find the entire text of the foreword here.

Careful about reading it. It starts killing brain cells within seconds.

Date: 2006/03/15 04:33:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Something just occurred to me -- this thread is essentially the 'annotated' version of Uncommon Descent.
Annotate this, buddy, you're gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/15 07:11:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,12:43)
Few people lie on purpose.  I am not accusing anyone that.  But people honestly fool themselves and others all the time due to ignorance and self interest.  Most people including most biologists, except a few specialists, believe in evolution not because they have studied it carefully.  They do so because the experts told them so. The experts have a lot of self interests to defend, fame, career, funding, which may not have much to do with seeking truth.  

How remarkably arrogant you are to know what the motives of all scientists are, and to be so sure you know what they're thinking better than they do.

You quite sure that YOU don't "fool yourself and others all the time due to ignorance and self interest"? May I ask if you have religious beliefs that enter into this?

Date: 2006/03/15 07:19:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Uh oh, I wonder what name Whack-a-mole Larry was going by this time?

Nice to see he's finally banned.

Date: 2006/03/15 07:50:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Human nature and motifs are not that tough to figure out.

Oh really? Maybe they are, since you claim to have all scientists figured out, and somehow the scientists can't see this fact which is so self-evident to you.

When we see someone behave not the way we expected them to, we call them insane.

That is your definition of 'insane'?? Quite a revealing statement from you. (Seems to contradict your previous statement as well.) Hope you don't go into the mental health field.

If faith in something we dont know, like God, is religion, it is equally a religion to have faith in random mutation as our creator, since we know absolutely nothing about how random events can create order and life.

Now, you see, Shi, when you say tangibly false things like that and ignore people's counterevidence for your claims, it makes you look not so much like any kind of scientist, but more like another ID apologist or crackpot full of conspiracy theories about wicked cabals of dishonest scientists covering up the truth out of self-interest. If you don't want to end up like those people at UD, you do need to try harder than that.

Date: 2006/03/15 08:21:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,14:15)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,Mar. 15 2006,13:50]Now, you see, Shi, when you say tangibly false things like that and ignore people's counterevidence for your claims, it makes you look not so much like any kind of scientist, but more like another ID apologist or crackpot full of conspiracy theories about wicked cabals of dishonest scientists covering up the truth out of self-interest. If you don't want to end up like those people at UD, you do need to try harder than that.

Frankly, I am not that impressed with your lot of so-called scientists here in this forum.  You understand little about your faith.  You often do and say things that could only be characterised as uncivilized.  Such as freely insulting  and calling people names like crackpots.  Such as prefer to spit rather than to speak.  

Just because there are some crazy guys associated with ID, it does not mean that all ID people are crazy.  By the same token, just because scientists have a reputation to be rational and civilized, it does not mean that all people who call themselves scientists are rational and civilized.  

Please learn to appreciate the value of all people, regardless of their faith.  You are only making yourself foolish when you abuse people.

Oh, so you're a scientist? Really.

'Foolish' to me is ignoring what others tell you, and calling it 'insane' when others act in a way you don't expect. 'Insane' is blaming your frustrations on conspiracies.

As for 'civilized', it helps if you don't say one thing then deny it five minutes later.

You understand little about your faith.

'Faith'? Um, Shi, do you actually know what that word means?

Date: 2006/03/15 08:40:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
In light of Shi's antics on the other thread, this was amusing:

one has to appreciate, especially in the current climate of controversy, that the researchers are being up front about how intelligent design is at the center of their work and also that they resisted the urge to suck up to the establishment by offering ritualistic deference to Darwin and conventional evolutionary theory.

Bill Dembski, doing valiant service for a reactionary religious establishment, trying to advocate the literal truth of some 2,000+ year old ancient scriptures. Whatta rebel!
Okay, that does it. If you guys don't stop this sh1t of putting fake comments from me at the end of every comment, you will be very sorry.-dt

Date: 2006/03/15 08:43:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (JonF @ Mar. 15 2006,14:24)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,13:40)
actual, unadulterated Davetard:

I have received emails from biology PhDs identifying themselves as commenters here using pseudonyms because they&#8217;re afraid of what will happen if they attach their real names to ID sympathetic writing.

To the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean":

   The Lurkers support me in e-mail
   They all think I'm great don't you know.
   You posters just don't understand me
   But soon you will reap what you sow.

   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

   The lurkers support me in e-mail
   "So why don't they post?" you all cry
   They're scared of your hostile intentions
   They just can't be as brave as I.

   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

   One day I'll round up all my lurkers
   We'll have a newsgroup of our own
   Without all this flak from you morons
   My lurkers will post round my throne.

   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

                                             Jo Walton


Post it at UD and get out your stopwatch til it's deleted.

Date: 2006/03/15 09:24:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
'Duplicity'? ? ?

Does Dave hope we'll magically forget the myriad of different names he's posted at here and at PT?
Here's a name for you if you don't knock it off: toast.-dt

Date: 2006/03/15 12:21:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,17:34)
anyone know how to turn off those smileys which always misfire?

Underneath the box where you write messages, click 'Emoticons' -- they have a list of the codings for the 8 different emoticons, one of which is 3 question marks in a row, which gives this the following emoticon: ???
Hey I used to work at Dell and I know WAY more about emoticons than YOU do. Liberal homo.-dt

What I do is just insert spaces between the question marks. That 'neutralizes' the emoticons.
I'm neutralizing you right now, pal.-dt

Date: 2006/03/15 12:27:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 15 2006,18:04)
no matter which theory you have in mind, the current one is still a Darwinism.
I don't think I have heard Darwinism referred to as a noun before. I am just trying to get you to state which particular fact you think refutes evolution, along with evidence. Is it that some genes should have diverged to equal sequnce identity due to reaching functional limits, or that animal cytochrome c proteins are equally distant from yeast but shouldnt be due to differing mutation rates.

Actually, 'Darwinism' is always a noun, it's just that Shi is mistakenly using it as a count noun rather than a mass noun, which is what it actually is. Presumably an ESL problem.

(I'll just be on my way, said the linguistics nerd...)

Date: 2006/03/15 12:34:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,16:31)
I hope an alternative and more correct explanation of the facts will come out soon in the form of a published paper.

What journal do you intend to publish this in?

But when one day, the replacement is offered to the public, they would all say, gee, that is so simple, how come I did not think of that.

You're certainly modest, I'll give you that. What's more, you've figured out how corrupt and dishonest most scientists are, as well. No mean feat.

Just send us the reference when it comes out.

Date: 2006/03/15 13:57:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Please do not misrepresent me.  To make the record clear, I believe most people (scientist, ID people, religious people, Darwin people) are honest human beings.  But all it takes is one single individual to cause the majority of the society to think in one way or the other.  If that individual is an honest truth seeker, we have a major advance in knowledge, as illustrated by countless individuals in history.  On the other hand, if we have an influential individual that is honestly fooling himself and the society, we will have the majority of the society repeating together with him what he is telling us.  In such a case, I would not accuse the majority of people being dishonest.  Rather, I would call that influential individual a fool if he is honest and a liar if he is dishonest.  

To give you an example, most people here in the forum honestly believe in evolution without knowing much details about it or its problems.  That is abundantly clear based on what I read here.  Do you think they come to their conclusion by first hand research like Darwin did?  Of course not.  They mostly got it second hand through things like textbooks.  All you need is one dishonest textbook author to make millions of people looking like dishonest liars or honest fools.

That doesn't really jibe with what you said earlier:

Few people lie on purpose.  I am not accusing anyone that.  But people honestly fool themselves and others all the time due to ignorance and self interest.  Most people including most biologists, except a few specialists, believe in evolution not because they have studied it carefully.  They do so because the experts told them so. The experts have a lot of self interests to defend, fame, career, funding, which may not have much to do with seeking truth.  

This makes it sound like you're convinced most biologists -- not just people on this board, but biologists -- are ignorant and only believe in evolution because of peer pressure; and, that the rest of them are a handful of phony experts who only believe in evolution because it helps their career -- essentially, people who are dishonest.

In other words, you are saying only stupid people and a small handful of dishonest people disagree with you. That certainly no one honest and intelligent could really disgree with you.

I personally believe this is a quite egomaniacal position for you to take (tho it's quite common among intelligent design types), but let me take a different tack: what is your evidence for this conspiracy? Thousands of biologists, actual working scientists, claim to take evolution as a given in their work. What is your evidence that these people are simply ignorant, or lying to protect their jobs? It seems to me that burden of proof is on YOU to show us how terribly smart you are and how terribly foolish everyone else is.

Like I said, compete like everyone else and get your work published in a real journal. Compete in the meritocracy, and quit complaining about conspiracies. Because until then, what I'm hearing sounds an awful lot like one of those angry cranks who's convinced the scientific establishment is corrupt and wrong about everything, and who knows better than all of them, yet who dodges all the difficult questions anyone asks. ID has too many of them as it is.

Date: 2006/03/15 14:09:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,19:55)

James Wynne asks what this has to do with ID.

This is what.

Comment by DaveScot — March 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

I get it now. If you enter any two search terms in the same Google search, then all hits are pertinent to whatever you want them to be pertinent to, or, it means that if there are any hits, the search terms must be related. How could I not have known that? Here’s another example for you that proves your point:

Comment by JimWynne — March 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
And no, I didn't change the order.

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?

Date: 2006/03/15 14:17:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:12)
Very amusing! Is he banned yet?
No, but you are, sucka! -dt

Oh no you don't, only *I* can ban people, and... oh, wait. Never mind.-dt

Date: 2006/03/15 14:24:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:22)

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

From under a rock somewhere would be my guess.

Date: 2006/03/15 14:57:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:26)
While you're at it, let's get somebody peer-reviewing Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity. How do I know he wasn't just pulling my leg...

Hey, was the BIBLE ever peer-reviewed? Seems to me it should have been since it's so important. And if it's going to be fair, there need to be several atheists among the peer reviewers, to guarantee balance.

Date: 2006/03/15 15:01:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,20:31)
All I am saying is that most people including most biologists believe in evolution in a casual fashion.  Whatever the specialists tell them, they would respond, okay, I am with you.  It has got nothing to do with their life or work. They dont conspire anything except to making an honest living.

May I ask how you know that biologists have such a shallow understanding of evolution?

Date: 2006/03/16 05:41:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:23)
Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?

Date: 2006/03/16 06:09:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:45)
Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?
We have Always been at war with Eurasia. And homos like yourself. -ds

I'm not the homo. You're the homo. And besides, we have always been at war with Eastasia.-dt

Date: 2006/03/16 06:21:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 16 2006,12:19)
I did mean posting and not commenting or viewing privileges.

I also meant "for the" and not "fort he".

You can go back and EDIT your posts, you know...

Date: 2006/03/16 08:22:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 16 2006,14:16)
You're welcome.

Humour could be another path to enlightenment, along with the repetition of mantras.

Not usually, tho.

Date: 2006/03/16 08:50:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Panda's Thumb: 37.87 comments per post (counting Tim Sandefur posts as zeroes)
Uncommonly Dense: 8.45 comments per post.

No, make that 7.45 because YOU'RE gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/16 08:57:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Did you know I used to work for Dell?-dt

Date: 2006/03/16 11:30:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Uh oh. Shi's comparing himself to Einstein. Not a good sign.

I suspect Shi has no proof of this grand conspiracy, but he knows it must be real, because this could be the only reason why scientists disagree with him.

Go ahead, shake the world of biology down to its foundations, Shi! Get yourself published in a real journal and blow us all away! Show us all how dimwitted we really are!

Date: 2006/03/16 14:26:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,18:45)
I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID.  Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science...  judges defining science!  Is this what stevestory is all giggly about?  What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue?  What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?  

The IDC crowd really seems to be scarcely bothering to go thru the motions of doing (or being) real science anymore. They're now banking everything on some rightwing fundamentalist/activist judge giving them a favorable ruling despite everything -- a scenario where they're plucked out from the burning building by the helicopter. Everything else the IDC folks are doing is just to bide their time til this mythic judge comes along and rescues them.

And I seem to be hearing this whole "redefine science" meme a LOT more than I used to -- since they've failed dismally to convince anyone IDC isn't religion, they're now dreaming of some judge mandating that 'science' now officially must include the supernatural. I always ask whether this will include other notions of the origins of the world like what the Hindus or Neopagans believe, but they never answer.

Remarkably totalitarian -- imagine the Supreme Court intervening in what the valid definition of, say, history, chemistry or medicine was. For a bunch of folks who hate Islam so much, fundies sure seem to share a lot of the worst habits of Islamist countries.

Date: 2006/03/17 04:39:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,02:30)
This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end.

The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt

Here's the money quote from there:

It seems that DaveScot is trying his best to alienate everyone who disagrees with him in order to be liked better by Darwinists, whom he doesn't like.

In order to be liked better by Darwinists? What the Fvck? ? ?

I think this poor befuddled soul means to say something like 'in order to look more like a scientist'. Which isn't working either.

Somehow this reminds me of a comment I read at Davison's asylum the other day, where he'd written sth. like "I think Dembski is a closet fundamentalist". Oh really? ?

Date: 2006/03/17 08:32:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2006,13:43)

I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business.

Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am
I Worked At DELL. DELL! Do you hear me!?!?! -ds

Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot.  :)

Date: 2006/03/17 09:27:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2006,15:09)
Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot.
I would cry, and shake my fist at the cruel universe, and then I would go read Uncommonly Dense. Dembski himself was not as entertaining, but still ridiculous. Remember when we predicted that he would turn his blog over to someone or be forced to close it, because it was taking so much of his time to singlehandedly ban every critic?  I don't think he'll take it back. They're creating a well-culled group of sycophants over there who will say 2+2=4 is a brilliant proof of intelligent design, if Maximum Leader tells them to think this.

2 + 2 does equal 4, pal, I win again.-dt

Date: 2006/03/17 10:08:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Shoot, I wanted to be the first with a mother joke.

Here's my take:

Creationism didn't work. Intelligent design isn't really working. 'Teach the Controversy' isn't really working. Besides, ID still doesn't consist of anything more than 'Some stuff sure looks designed', and they haven't convinced any more than the most pitiful number of scientists.

So new strategy?

a) if they all agree we aren't science, let's force the law to redefine science, so things like the Book of Genesis qualify.

b) destroy the whole concept of 'expertise':

*design is in nature
*biologists aren't qualified to detect design
*therefore, biologists aren't qualified to talk about what appears to be evolution.

Note how DS's new theme seems to be that biologists are only fit to be low-paid, anonymous drudges gathering raw data, which they will then hand over to people like Dembski et al, who will be the only people allowed to make pronouncements on its significance.

It's kind of fascinating to see these guys trying on a new strategy every week or two...

Date: 2006/03/18 05:57:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,02:10)
"Probably not anymore..."

I doubt honest scientists alter their conclusions whenever they meet with somebody they find disagreeable.

And your evidence that mattison0922 is a scientist is...what, exactly?

Date: 2006/03/18 06:31:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,12:16)
Ooh! The great internet challenge ... "Your evidence is what?"
I can only go by the evidence available -what he said - just as stevestory did.
Are you going to ask stevestory for evidence that mattison is an ID supporter?

It's not 'an internet challenge'. One also finds it in academia. If someone makes an unsupported assertion, one can expect to be asked how they know this. It's not complicated.

I assume SteveStory is basically making his assumption on previous posts that mattison has made. If mattison has made a lot of posts, discerning that he's an ID supporter should not be a tricky thing. It's not usually a hard thing to figure out.

And if mattison is an ID supporter, I have my doubts that he's a scientist in any meaningful sense. He conceivably could be a scientist who's lost his mind, like Davison, but the odds are much better that he's something like an engineer or a computer programmer.

Date: 2006/03/18 06:43:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
You seem to always want proves of my knowledge.  That is really pointless.  It proves nothing.  That is why I say it is pointless to accuse other people not knowing enough.

I mean this sincerely, Shi, if you keep that attitude, you have no future as a scientist. At all.

Date: 2006/03/18 06:47:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,12:45)
And I thought Pandamonium was a parody rather than an accurate portrayal of PT thinking.

Which part of my statement do you disagree with?

Date: 2006/03/18 07:16:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I disagree with: your hypocritical questioning of my assertion and not stevestory's;

What kind of definition of 'hypocritical' are you working off of here? Most people posting at UD are ID supporters, because everyone who's not gets kicked off. Remember? That whole 'no dissent' thing? From all indications, very very few UD regulars are working scientists. If mattison is not an ID supporter, I stand corrected. You make it sound like 'ID supporter' is some kind of Darwinist slander -- thousands of people self-identify that way.

your circular "No real scientist believes in ID" reasoning;

It's not circular reasoning. It's been made abundantly clear over the past several years. ID is junk science. Sorry if you support ID and this upsets you.

your pretentious conflation of your behaviour with that of academia;

Huh? Now you're really not making sense. You are the one who called asking for one's evidence for an assertion a, what, a 'great internet challenge'? I'm sorry if you think asking for someone's evidence for something is a trick of some kind, but if so that says a lot about you.

your bigoted assumption of mattison's professional status;

'Bigoted'. No, it's based on long observation. (Making tentative judgement calls based on long observation is not 'bigoted'.) Most ID supporters who know a certain amount of scientific jargon turn out to be engineers or computer programmers or such. They can also be mathematicians, lawyers or property managers. Not biologists, that's for sure. This is simply from repeated observation. I am not the first person to make this observation.

your lazy challenge to a statement without bothering to lift a finger to verify or refute it yourself.

'Lazy'? Please, it's not *important* enough to justify the effort. Statistically the odds are quite good that Mattison supportsd ID. If you feel defending people at UD is so important, you prove me wrong. You show me what his affiliations are, and if they prove me wrong, I stand corrected.

Incidentally, why didnt you challenge stevestory's assertion when he first made it, if it's so important?

I do notice that you didn't take exception to my assertion that Davison is insane. I guess some things are just too obvious to dispute.

Date: 2006/03/18 07:58:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 18 2006,13:39)
To be fair, Arden, there are one or two scientists who believe in ID.  One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.  Although I dont know how good his actual scientific research is....

I, um, stand corrected.

And one also does find occasional people like physicists who find Jesus and start supporting ID because of that.

Date: 2006/03/18 08:47:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 18 2006,14:28)
One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.
He's in Leeds, I think his work in thermodynamics is good, he's a fellow of the royal institute of physics. He explains his purely scientific objection to evolution in this book. Im sure there are several non-religous scientists who support ID, that doesn't change the fact that the movement is primarily a religious one.



Date: 2006/03/18 08:58:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 18 2006,14:28)
One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.
He's in Leeds, I think his work in thermodynamics is good, he's a fellow of the royal institute of physics. He explains his purely scientific objection to evolution in this book. Im sure there are several non-religous scientists who support ID, that doesn't change the fact that the movement is primarily a religious one.

So, since he's a thermodynamics lecturer, does he claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Or does he avoid that?

Date: 2006/03/18 09:16:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 18 2006,06:25)
Can I assume you have no children of your own?

I haven't been keeping track of this thread for a while so I might have missed something, but may I ask why it is relevant whether O'Brien has children?

Date: 2006/03/18 10:46:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
All a wicked liberal homo atheist muslim conspiracy, no doubt.

Date: 2006/03/18 11:42:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2006,17:23)
Davetard--the answer is, we've decided to be as thin-skinned and intolerant of disagreement as you, so we don't allow your trackbacks anymore.

Ha! Us stoop to the level of you and WAD? That'll be the day. It's a technical glitch which'll be resolved.

How's this for resolved? You're gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/18 13:10:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,18:36)
If you feel defending people at UD is so important, you prove me wrong.

Yes, but see, I was defending science, not "people at UD".

Huh?? Wait -- you're defending science by claiming that people can believe in ID and still be scientists? Is THAT what you mean here?

You see, because I don't think it's important, don't deny it, and don't find it offensive. And I read the man's comments and know it is as he said. What I asked is why you didn't question it, given you demanded evidence from me when I was citing the same person from the same thread.

So, basically, you weren't offended, you don't find it important, and you even knew my statement was correct, but you got indignant anyway, even tho you made an assertion you couldn't back up either. Makes loads of sense...

Since you live to sit here and comment on UD

'Live to'? Cool. Now you're psychic. If it's so undignified to comment here, why are YOU here?

it would seem appropriate you would read what you are discussing. That's how things are done in academic circles.

You're defending ID, yet you tell us how things are done in academic circles? If I wasted that much time refuting anonymous ID apologists, wouldn't that qualify as spending too much time here?

It seems to me you haven't really refuted anything I've said here, or even argued against it -- you're just indignant that I should make such comments. Do you actually have any kind of counterargument here?

Date: 2006/03/18 16:54:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,22:36)
Huh?? Wait -- you're defending science by claiming that people can believe in ID and still be scientists? Is THAT what you mean here?

Now I see why you didn't bother to read the UD thread that you are questioning - you didn't even bother to read my comment here to which you have responded.
I defended science in stating that I doubt that a scientist's conclusions would be so easily manipulated has been suggested.

and you even knew my statement was correct

Your statement? You made no statement. You demanded evidence that the scientist was a scientist.
If it's so undignified to comment here, why are YOU here?

Too bad you can't read what is presented as well as you read what isn't.
It seems to me you haven't really refuted anything I've said here, or even argued against it -- you're just indignant that I should make such comments. Do you actually have any kind of counterargument here?

Counter to what? Counter to "Your evidence being what...exactly?"?
The counter argument is "read the thread".

You were being quite unclear. I don't think an actual scientist would be swayed by DaveS browbeating him either.

And all I can conclude is that you're unable argue with any of my points (e.g., it being quite unlikely that an ID apologist would be an actual scientist), but you simply didn't like that anyone should say them. Hence the obfuscation and obsession with semantic points.

Date: 2006/03/19 08:24:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16)

You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

I think Thordaddy gets Creationist Post of the Week for this one.

Date: 2006/03/19 12:18:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 19 2006,17:51)
You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable.

Thordaddy is just trying out a new Republican strategy: all opinions and ideologies are equally correct, and reality is relative. Therefore, the reality we decide to go with as a nation must be chosen by public opinion polls. Whatever opinion or ideology a plurality of the American public prefers becomes official policy. So therefore, if 51% of the American public says the world is 5,000 years old, the world is 5,000 years old.

I've been seeing more veiled versions of this for a while, but few people state it as baldly as TD.

Date: 2006/03/19 12:54:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 19 2006,18:28)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2006,09:25)
This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others.
Is there a word for how pathetic that statement is?

May I propose 'Davetastic'?

'Davelicious'? 'Daveriffic'?

Date: 2006/03/19 16:34:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.

My momma taught me it was wrong to make fun of the insane.

She never taught me any such lesson about making fun of assholes.

Date: 2006/03/20 04:31:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 20 2006,01:41)
Lastly, I didn't not say science and religion were identical much like a scientist wouldn't say a human and a fish were identical.  What I said was that science and religion were fundamentally identical similar to how fish and humans are fundamentally identical.  They both share a common lineage, common structure and common function.  Call it descent with modification.

You fellas really need to get your act together if you expect science to get the respect you demand.

So, science and religion are identical in the way humans and fish are identical. Cool.

Yup, TD, til we're just like you, us scientists just won't get no respect. Dang.

Whoa, tough crowd!

Date: 2006/03/20 05:29:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 20 2006,10:45)
They''ll tell you it is all because of the fall of man. Apparently before the fall all bacteria, snakes, spiders, sharks, lions dinosaurs and all the other dangerous critters were in fact vegetarian, and what we see now is all a result of the fall.

So no burgers in the Garden of Eden?


Date: 2006/03/20 05:37:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 20 2006,08:41)
With his head resting on bags of $$$$.

Jay Sherman: How do you sleep at night?

Rainier Wolfcastle: On top of a large pile of money with many beautiful ladies.

Jay Sherman: Just asking!

Date: 2006/03/20 06:05:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Seven Popes @ Mar. 20 2006,11:59)
Too much irony.  You derailed Thordaddies thread.

What's worse, by speaking French. I'm sure he's appalled.  :p

Date: 2006/03/20 10:54:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Niels Bohr put it, the opposite of a fundamental truth is also a truth.  A particle is also wave.  I am inclined to belive that if the  no-God guided evolution theory is a fundamental truth, its opposite, a God guided evolution, is also a truth.  It is pointless for the two sides to argue.  What is needed is a unification of the two sides.

Oh, okay, I get it! Like 'freedom is slavery', 'war is peace', and 'ignorance is strength'. I dig.

I think Shi and Thordaddy are starting to converge in beliefs here. Who'd have thought?

Date: 2006/03/20 12:36:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 20 2006,18:06)
Oooooh!  A global warming thread over at UD!

The first four comments rehash tiresome old claims ...

"Big Science on the public trough is most of the problem..."

Climatologists are scammers at the public trough!

"I’ve got my eye on 4000 acres in North Dakota where I’m going to plant bananas and coconuts."

Global warming will be good for us!

"Does anyone honestly believe that mankind could stop the next ice age from coming?"

Human activity couldn't possibly impact climate!

"volcanos spit out far more 'greehouse gasses' every year than humans do."

Sigh ...

Unless someone there states that scientists are causing global warming (a la Michael Crichton), I won't be happy.

I hope Mister North Dakota buys soon, I hear ocean front property is worth a lot.

Date: 2006/03/20 19:55:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I see both DaveScot and Davison are both posting in the 'Evolution for Kids' thread. Dave's posting under 'DaveS', which he's been posting under for a week.

Date: 2006/03/20 20:11:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Also, 'J Early' in the Nancy Pearcy thread at PT is Larry.

Date: 2006/03/21 04:32:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Mar. 21 2006,08:09)
The contemptible Shi is in the precise position of someone arguing that the results of mixing alcohol and water disprove mathematics.
After all, math asserts that 2 + 2 = 4, but mixing 2 liters of alcohol with 2 liters of water results in rather less than 4 liters of solution.
So, of course, math must be wrong and 2 + 2 does not universally equal 4.  And if that is false, all of math is false.

We see this repeatedly. Some have called it the 'silver bullet strategy' -- if you can find one thing that 'evolutionists' say that is incorrect or problematic, you disprove the entirety of evolution. And of course, everything the one doing the disproving says thereby becomes true. Sort of a weird zero-sum game.

My hunch is this is an attitude carried over from religious debating, where this sort of rhetoric is widely accepted.

Date: 2006/03/21 06:49:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Larry has several comments at the Nancy Pearcy thread at PT that ought to be deleted.

Look for 'J Early' and the terribly clever 'J Nameless'.

Date: 2006/03/21 07:08:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 21 2006,12:54)
It doesn't matter if Larry is officially banned or not. He's still wrecking threads.

I think deleting his posts as soon as they appear and banning his IP addresses, as often as it has to be done, will help. Seems to me after they started doing that to him a week ago he disappeared for several days. If he doesn't get a reaction and if it's hard work for him to post there, he'll drift away.

Date: 2006/03/21 07:14:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 21 2006,12:59)
Davison says it was a mistake for ID to ever concede that design was a point of argument, but I can't see how that was to be avoided.

I suspect the real reason he gets banned is he doesn't watch his tongue.

You mean banned at PT? Well, yeah, that's why he was banned at PT, basically for repeat-offender assholery. He wasn't banned for having stupid ideas. Oodles of people with stupid ideas pop up at PT semi-regularly, and have for months and months. That may get them ridiculed and heckled, but it won't get them banned. Davison's problem was that he chose not to suppress his instinct to act like a sociopath.

If you're talking about JD's banning at UD, that was presumably more complicated.

Date: 2006/03/21 10:12:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ Mar. 21 2006,16:02)
But noooooooooooooo… nuclear power plants are “too dangerous” to operate (we have a perfect safety record in the U.S. and only a single catastrophic failure in the entire world to date) and spent fuel disposal is an environmental hazard (even though the fuel was in the environment in the first place).

Apparently DaveScot does not realize that in order to get that fuel it had to be extracted and concentrated beyond natural levels.

Why is DaveScot referring to nuclear power as 'we'?

"Why, plutonium is just another product of nature, just like oil, or selenium!"

Nice to see Dave is branching out from ID and becoming a clearing house for all manner of wingnut-inspired junk science.

Date: 2006/03/21 10:51:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 21 2006,16:22)

OK so it wasn't catastrophic...

But that's not what he even said. DaveDell's original statement about nuclear power was 'we have a perfect safety record in the US'

Nice that he's keeping his usual standards of Davetardation.

Watch that comment to see how soon he shoots it down the memory hole.

Date: 2006/03/21 11:24:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I have absolutely had it with people like Matt Young and their concerted effort to censor traditional American culture and values and replace it with their own new age crap. Get out of my country, Young. Right now. Pack your trash and g-e-t o-u-t.

Wow! Dave treats the whole country of America just like the people at his blog!

Date: 2006/03/21 11:58:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Faust is 'new age crap'??

Poor dumb Dave. He really does seem to be off his game today. More than usual, I mean.

Date: 2006/03/21 14:14:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
When I hear about women like the mother who called up the teacher to complain, I almost fear the religious right more than the anti-religionists. It really doesn’t matter which is worse, in the end. Just that both extremes are deleterious to the truth, which shall set us free…

No, I'm setting YOU free. You're gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/21 14:16:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Seven Popes @ Mar. 21 2006,20:07)
SteveStory derails his OWN thread!

I'm derailing YOU, pal. You're gone.-dt

Date: 2006/03/21 14:53:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Get out of my country, Stevestory. Right now. Pack your trash and g-e-t o-u-t.-dt

Date: 2006/03/21 14:58:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 21 2006,20:53)
How on earth do you know the townspeople didn’t know anything about Faust? What a sweeping and assuredly false accusation. You just fabricated that statement out of whole cloth. -ds

True. The townspeople of Bennett managed to figure out that Ms. Waggoner was a lesbian devil-worshipper, so they must have a lot on the ball.

Date: 2006/03/21 15:56:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
It’s comment #88206 by BWE. I should also say that I looked pretty hard to find where this person was somehow reprimanded for it but couldn’t see that it was even acknowledged. Over here, we have no tolerance for attacks like that directed toward any faith.

Ho ho ho. The wonderful bastion of tolerance that is UD. Guess he's never heard DaveScot talk about Islam.

Date: 2006/03/23 16:07:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thurdl01 @ Mar. 22 2006,17:36)
Here's what I wonder...considering that the story of Faust is an exploration of Christian ideals, if it was the ACLU instead of a group of fundy parents trying to get it out of schools...would UD suddenly be pro-Faust?

Yes. Dave bases all of his decisions (scientific or otherwise) on which political team is on which side. He sides with the wingnuts on absolutely anything, and against 'liberals' on absolutely anything, regardless of how ridiculous an argument this forces him into. If George Bush said the sun rose in the west, tomorrow he'd be banning people at UD for contradicting it.

Date: 2006/03/23 16:56:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
No jokes about Ham radio yet?

Date: 2006/03/24 09:37:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ Mar. 24 2006,15:22)

This thread is telling ID followers "What ever you do, don't threaten violence against people who don't support ID."

To me, this means that they HAVE to tell their followers not to get violent.

In light of what happened in Kansas, I think this is a good idea.

But does this also apply to nonviolent threats, such as those made by DaveScot toward Judge Jones? They had to do with losing his job or any prospect of being "promoted" to a higher office.

I like the Mann Coulter reference in the article though.  :)

Judge Jones gets death threats for his Dover ruling. By DS's 'reasoning', wouldn't that be the fault of UD, since websites pertaining to evolution supposedly incite people to violence?

Also, note that Ann Coulter outright encourages the murder of a Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone censure her? Nope. Does she get in trouble? Nope. Does her career suffer? Nope. Does she lose any fans? Highly doubt it. She knows exactly what her cretinous followers want.

Assuming that DS hasn't condemned AC for doing that, by his logic he must support her little fatwa.

No comments on that UD thread yet. Wonder if it'll get many? It might turn a lot of fundies off by implying that 'their side' might not be entirely saintly.

Date: 2006/03/26 13:12:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Both of my parents were raised Catholic, my father especially. However, by the time I came along, they'd started to really burn out on it, due to some of the more aggressive social pressures to conform that always seem to accompany Catholicism in small town America. My parents saw loads of examples of people being quite cruel to others due to people being perceived as 'not good Catholics', so when my parents finally moved a certain geographic distance away from their parents, they dropped it like a hot brick. I was 5 at the time, and hadn't gotten anything like the big walloping dose of Catholicism (and parochial schools) that my older siblings did. The result of all this was that we quit going to any kind of church and my mother became EXTREMELY anti-organized religion, which influenced me a lot. That's one favor I owe my folks. ;)

Then when I was in my mid-30's, I became a Buddhist, but that's another story.

Date: 2006/03/26 14:19:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dante @ Mar. 26 2006,13:51)
I wonder how the Darwinists sleep at night.

On top of a pile of peer-reviewed, researched papers.

"Vit many beautiful ladies"

(another Rainier Wolfcastle reference...)

Date: 2006/03/26 14:50:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Renier @ Mar. 26 2006,19:18)
This new UD blogger, Barry the lawyer, is something else ...

He should stick to law. His understanding of science is frightful...

If he knew jack about science, DS would have kicked him off long ago.

Date: 2006/03/27 05:00:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Wow, this is some of the most self-referential stuff I've ever seen:

It can’t be a missing link: we’ve found it.


You’re going to be a missing link around here! -dt  

Tiax on Uncommon Pissant (I’m banned there) says: click me

and DaveScot replies: No. Really? A moderator you say.”  

and DaveScot replies again (inside joke here) “Argystokes you were right the first time. But hey, the edit you pulled, what can I say except You have learned well, grasshopper.

Comment by Tiax — March 26, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

Which bits here are actually yours, Tiax?

I guess our DaveTard's initial rage has subsided and this is his way of finally acknowledging the delightful new game we've constructed around him. Or something.

Date: 2006/03/27 05:22:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Good lord, I'd forgotten the depths of dumbitute to which DougMoran can sink...

Okay, Doug? He was a Protestant, and voted Republican most of the time. We think he worked as a claims adjustor.

This is a pretty common ID response to news items like this -- "Oh, la di dah, this is so unimportant! Who cares? Tell us something we don't know". I mean, they have nothing else to say. If they were straight YEC types they'd give us some gibberish about how it was just a species of monkey that went extinct in the Flood, but IDers have to do this whole 'pretend-to-be-scientific' thing.

Quote (Faid @ Mar. 27 2006,07:10)

Seems you struck a nerve. Ol' Dave couldn't come up with a response other than linking here.
Maybe he wanted to say just that, and you stole his thunder?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Editing your own comments, indeed! Get your act together, or pretty soon you're going to sink so low that you'll be deleting embarrassing threads whole, too... no wait

From the same thread, I saved this for posterity:

Guys help me out here... I'm confused. Seriously. Is he trying to be sarcastic, or is he a moron? Or both?

Date: 2006/03/27 05:33:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 26 2006,13:38)
I was surprised to learn from Mrs. Barton that:

Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.

Has anyone told Behe? Dembski? The DI?

This is the thing about ID that's always dazzled me the most: no two ID followers ever tell the same story. They're completely incapable of getting on the same page. It seems to mean a different thing to each and every one of its followers, like snowflakes. However, given that ID has no research and no peer-reviewed literature, and that most of its advocates have probably never read most of the books written about it, this is what we'd expect. Sociologically ID really is more like some kind of folk religion which has gone off in a million different directions.

This is of course what people mean when they point out that there is no theory of Intelligent Design. Sigh.

Date: 2006/03/27 07:15:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Larry is posting again under the name 'Nobody' in PT's thread 'The next time ID people cry censorship'. And of course, people are feeding him. Is someone going to delete his posts, or have they given up?

Date: 2006/03/27 09:31:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 27 2006,15:02)
What's with the "!!!!!!!!1111" thing in the title?
It's just a stupid internet joke.  Probably stemming from the L33T (elite) playful mispellings.  It's a typo that only results from the keyboard layout.  Also common is "PWNED" rather than "OWNED".  For added humor it's common to see people spell out the 1 just to show that it was intentional!!!11one1

Yes, it's stupid.  Most internet jokes are.  But, now you know.

As long as we're listing stupid internet jokes, don't forget 'teh' for 'the'. Even Wikipedia has a piece on that one.

Date: 2006/03/27 13:30:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Fross @ Mar. 27 2006,17:19)
Are any of you guys parents?  My son is about to turn four, and he's as skeptical as you can get on the subject of God, angels, Santa, Easter Bunny ect.   Basically if he can't see them, he's very skeptical about it.   On the other hand, he is always afraid of "spooks" as he calls them.  (ghost and monsters in his closet)   We have to pound it in his head that he's just using his imagination.  Like he'll run out of a darkened hallway screaming with fear "i'm using my imagination again!" with slight tears in his eyes.

That is too adorable!

I have a 10-year-old daughter. She believed in Santa Claus up til a few years ago, but then started doubting it xmas before last. She asked us "there isn't really a Santa, is there?" We admitted there wasn't, and she was fine with it, but last xmas she sorta regressed and started believing in it again, perhaps fearing she would get fewer presents. I suspect this next xmas she'll have left the concept behind once and for all.

As for religion, we expose her to various things that either I, my wife, or close friends appreciate, including Buddhism, Unitarianism, and occasional stuff like Yogananada. Mostly the first two, but we don't give her big, mandatory doses of any of it. Our goal is to have her know lots of stuff exists, and to be open minded about what's out there, but to only have her participate to the extent she wants to. It's fine with us if she simply chooses nothing. We're also raising her to respect rationality as best we can. She asked me what evolution was once, based on something she saw on TV, and I explained it to her as well as I could. She got it, but she asked "but there's people who don't believe that, right?" So I had to explain that in a way a 10-year-old would understand.

We pride ourselves on raising our daughter in a way people like James Dobson and DaveTard definitely would not approve of. :p

Date: 2006/03/27 17:26:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Why are you guys debating with this guy? It's a total waste of time, he's completely unreachable.

This sentence is completely incoherent, as in I-have-no-idea-what-the-fvck-it-means:

Why are there NO debates between science and the public school system outside of the ID versus evolution which is really a debate between science and the school system versus IDists.

This makes me seriously wonder if TD is a second language speaker of English or whether he has some language disability, perhaps from advanced age.

Date: 2006/03/27 18:42:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 28 2006,00:11)
Rarely do I get as gratifying a capitulation as this, though:

You are necessarily getting bogged down in the details of my examples while leaving the bigger point dangling in cyberspace.

That is pretty good.

I would translate it as "just because all my facts are wrong, that doesn't undermine my final conclusion in the slightest".

Coming from someone who sees no difference between science and religion, we shouldn't be surprised.

Date: 2006/03/28 04:15:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I don't think there are any consequences later in life to believing in Santa as a kid. I believed in Santa like everyone else when I was little and it didn't put the slightest dent in my later robust adult cynicism. Seems harmless to me.

Date: 2006/03/28 04:55:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,09:28)
given the threats against Judge Jones, you think they'd be pretending they never talked about a blog being responsible for actions.

I think the threats against Jones might be why DaveTard is perpetuating the "PT-burned-the-Alabama-churches" meme. You know, best defense is a good offense and all that. It's all the more bizarre, in that we now KNOW that the arsons were done by a bunch of maladjusted nice Christian kids who probably never heard of Darwin in their lives, but for DaveTard, it is politically absolutely necessary for those arsons to be the work of wicked evilutionist homo liberals, so that makes it true. His feeble minded followers want it to be true really badly, so they eagerly accept it all. I mean he11, it's the same way these guys do 'science', we shouldn't be surprised.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:02:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37)
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:31:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 28 2006,10:25)
But, if the child disbelieves in santa and you lie to him over and over until he believes it and use his trust in you to deceive him?  Maybe it does pose a good lesson, but I'm not sure I would be able to do that to my child if I had one.

Trust me, belief in Santa is not a big deal. I've never heard of anyone who was all embittered later in life because their parents didn't tell them Santa was a myth. It wears off quickly, around age 10-11 at the latest, and leaves no traces. Besides, you're forgetting the main reason why kids don't feel 'betrayed' by believing in Santa -- because Santa gives him/her all kinds of cool stuff every xmas. So they'll have *good* associations with it all anyway.

Besides, when my 9-YO daughter asked me "Santa isn't real, is he?" I didn't lie to her. The way it usually works is the child is told the concept, immediately believes it, and then keeps believing it til the counterevidence becomes too much to ignore. Then they drop it. It's not generally inculcated by lying to a doubting child repeatedly.

Ultimately it is not important. If you raise a kid not to believe in Santa, that's fine too.

Raising a child to blindly trust religious structures due to vague threats of hellfire or punishment is infinitely worse and potentially messes up a child WELL into adulthood. Look at, say, Ben Domenich or Salvador Cordova.

Some old fat dude with a funny outfit who brings gameboys is harmless.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:43:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I think this has to be DaveTard's money quote:

Intelligent designers are a possibility proven by the existence of genetic engineers today. No argument can be made that these engineers are the first or only ones to ever exist.

No two ways about it, what DT seems to be saying here is because we have genetic engineers today, that proves that God/Yahweh/the Designer/Kang & Kodos did 'intelligent designing' in the past.

Just... wow.

He might even think he's 'proven God'.

And think about it -- this is the most prestigious ID blog on the web. This.

But wait -- if we had  'intelligent designers' in the past, how come we still have genetic engineers now?

Date: 2006/03/28 07:41:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
But Davescot said many times that hateful speech leads to hateful actions. PT is littered with hateful speech toward Christian/religious/fundamentalist people.

Do you spend much time at PT? There's actually quite a diverse set of people there (unlike at UD). You will find people who hate Christianity, people who hate religion, people who are ambivalent toward Christianity and religion, and people who ARE Christians and/or religious. All mixed together. When people bash all religions there or bash Christians in general, they get called on it. People argue there. It's what happens when a lot of very different people get thrown together in one place (again, unlike UD). What unites most of them is a desire for the teaching of real science not to be supplanted by government-mandated Biblical literalism.

As for 'hateful speech toward fundamentalists', that is a different matter. Much as I don't buy the idea that criticizing Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, I don't accept that criticizing fundamentalists is the same thing as criticizing or hating Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who believe that fundamentalists are actually doing a huge amount of harm to this country. Fundamentalist movements are trying to destroy, control or censor science, and to dictate laws that would restrict the freedom or criminalize the beliefs of people who disagree with them. That is very corrosive to American society, and I see nothing wrong at all at attacking THAT mindset. Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose. Aggressive fundamentalism is a different thing, tho, in that it seeks to enslave and dominate others. It's a political movement. As such, attacking it is fair game. If fundamentalists think that's the same as 'attacking religion', that's their problem.

Date: 2006/03/28 08:10:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 28 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Apparently DaveSlot knows what Jesus's diet consisted of:
Ignorance of the history of various Buddhist sects is no excuse for denying it when it’s pointed out to you, Sartori. There are totally non-violent Christian sects too and Christ is all about non-violence - love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, and etcetera are themes taught both by Christ and Buddha. Some Christians even insist that following Christ means you can’t eat meat because that entails killing. There’s no record of Christ ever killing anything. The most violent thing he did was curse a fig tree and he didn’t eat meat until (arguably due to translation issues) after the resurrection when he ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to his disciples he was truly risen from the dead and not an immaterial apparition. So you see, your initial claim that Buddhism is the only non-violent major religion is a crock of BS. -ds
Yup, cursing that fig tree was so much more violent than whipping the traders in the temple.

DaveTard is also committing the VERY commonly seen fallacy of claiming that the followers of a religion are the same as whatever its scriptures dictate. Jesus preached nonviolence, so therefore Christians are nonviolent.

(Judged by actual actions of its followers, it's hard to deny that Buddhism is the least violent major world religion. My nonobjective opinion, anyway.)

You're right tho, forgetting the whole whipping the moneychangers in the temple business is vintage Dave. Since he reads this site, expect him to alter that post in the next few hours.

PS: Am I the only one who finds the idea of DaveTard being an authority of Buddhist history wildly implausible?

Date: 2006/03/28 08:19:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They’re their own worst enemy.

No, Dave is being very coy here. At no point is he saying 'wicked Darwinists burned down the Alabama churches', since somewhere in the back of his brain he knows that's unsupportable. He's just throwing out a lot of little bits of innuendo and trusting that his credulous readers will make the connections. It's as tho a politician were to say that homosexuals like fancy restaurants and dressing well and then note that his opponent just ate at an expensive French restaurant and bought a $2,000 suit. Pretty typical GOP 'debating' strategy these days.

The odd thing is that at some level DS probably does really believe that Darwinists burned down those churches. The lack of any connection would be more than overridden by the ideological necessity of the statement to be true. So even tho he's lying, he probably believes it's in support of something true, anyway.

Date: 2006/03/28 08:57:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Another extremely foolish aspect of DT's "Jesus preached nonviolence, so Christians are nonviolent" argument is that it conveniently overlooks the Old Testament, which does not preach nonviolence in any way, and which arguably has a bigger influence on American Fundamentalists than the New Testament. So Christians' scriptures really don't have much of a defensible claim to being nonviolent.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:39:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Regarding the Jones threats, here is how UD reacted:

Is there a similar posting at PT on the church arsons?

Why do you think there should be? Jones was threatened because his anti-ID stance pissed off ID supporters. There's actually a plausible connection between anti-evolution rhetoric and threatening pro-evolution judges. What fvcking connection is there between Panda's Thumb and church arsons? Is PT supposed to put up an apologetic notice every time a religious institution undergoes any kind of misfortune, just to reassure people that just because they believe in evolution, they're still not violent people?

I think you've been listening to DaveScot's rhetoric too long.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:23:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I am wondering if there has been any effort by PT to curtail the anti-religious rhetoric, in light of the situation, and its unenforced rules. I'm not saying it's necessary.

'Unenforced rules'?

Well, I can't speak for PT (they probably have a page listing their rules) but my sense is that their policy is to let people say whatever they will provided it's not violent, obscenely abusive, disruptive or otherwise violates their rules. Their policy is not to censor for ideas. (A good thing, no?) It's largely a free for all, and some people there are antireligious, and they have a right to be antireligious. Just like religious people have a right to dislike atheists. I'm not saying either position is 'correct'. The place mostly polices itself.

I don't know how close of attention you pay to UD, but I've seen plenty of rhetoric against atheists and liberals there, by both Dave and the visitors, and DaveScot really cannot stand Muslims. I know at PT you don't get the people running the site or starting threads saying the kind of stuff DS says on a daily basis.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:27:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,15:56)
Arden, you little church burner.


Please, I haven't burned down any churches in years.

There!! You see?? I knew you evilutionists burned churches. I win again.-dt

Date: 2006/03/28 14:40:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,20:31)
Anyway, everybody knows that PT contributers urge everyone to burn down  Lutheran churches. The ones in Alabama were Baptist. I mean, duh. Davetard is just way off.

Seems to me PT also said something about burning Episcopalian churches, tho offhand I can't remember whether it was pro or con.

Date: 2006/03/28 15:07:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 28 2006,20:37)
I must say that I tire of the religion mocking.  I understand that religion serves a very valuable service to people in this country.  I really pity people that feel that they are the only ones with THE correct belief system.  This goes for zealous-atheists or fundies.

It seems that evolution boards draw an atheist crowd.  There is a simple reason for this.  They are not here to defend science, as much as they are here to attack fundamentalists.  If creationists were attacking General Relativity there would be piles of atheistic comments on the GR boards.  But, this is where the battlefront is.  Anti-religious types hang around and throw in a jab at Christianity every now and then.  I think this really detracts from the boards.  I understand it (no one here claims to be a saint), but I still dislike it.  I firmly believe that such comments only anger the other side, and prevent any sort of learning from each other.  It's hard to learn from a teacher that spits insults between every other sentence.  We need to have more patient and understanding posters here.  There are plenty, but we could really use more.  I like arguing, and I love science, that's why I'm here.  Not to attack Christians.

I essentially agree with what you're saying, but there's a missing piece. The reason people attack fundamentalists at PT is because ID & Creationism are not scientific movements, but religious/political movements. If it were not for fundamentalism, American fundamentalism at that, there would be no ID or creationism. Therefore I don't think arguing with people's religious motives is uncalled for under those circumstances. IDC is about nothing if not religious motives.

That said, I do think there are people at PT who go overboard with attacking religion. But when fundamentalists step over into trying to mandate their beliefs over everyone else, then they lose the right for people to not say anything negative about their motives. If fundamentalist Christians kept their religion out of politics, didn't try to take civil rights away from people they dislike, didn't try and change what was taught in schools, and didn't try and subvert science with a lot of dishonest nonsense, I wouldn't be bothered by them in the least. It wouldn't be my business.

That same criterion was used here at ATBC to say that he should take responsibility in the Jones matter. But the comments at UD on that matter were neither similar in prevalence nor content to the anti-religious comments which he used as his rationale in the former case.

Actually, I don't think that UD should take responsibility in the Jones matter, per se. I don't think the threats against Jones are DS's 'fault'. However, I think the Alabama arsons are even less PT's fault, which is what makes DS's rhetoric so apallingly disingenuous.

Date: 2006/03/28 19:15:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 29 2006,00:52)
the god of Buddhism is the god of hinduism...

'The god of Buddhism'? Um, what are you referring to, there is no 'god of Buddhism'.

As much as I hate to agree with DS on anything, Buddhism has plenty of rituals and ceremonies. You can argue that they're not 'necessary', and certainly not everyone does them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

'Godhead'? DS must be thinking of the Krishnas here. No Buddhist that I've ever met (or read) uses that term to describe the Buddha.

Date: 2006/03/29 04:26:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 29 2006,02:49)
Hey, what happened to Arden's 15 minutes of fame on UD?
Not deleted? I'm shocked.

Edit: not deleted indeed, mea culpa.

Unlike you sucker. Call me a pevert, would you. You're deleted. -dt.

My 15 minutes of fame? What did they do? I didn't see...

Date: 2006/03/29 04:42:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Okay gang, I'm almost ready to do my first post at UD in response. Look at it fast before DaveTard deletes it.

EDIT: okay, I just posted, and within the hour I will presumably get banned, like everyone else here.

I don't know if it will actually appear on the board, or if it does how long it will stay, but for posterity, here's what I wrote:

Oo! My 15 minutes of fame here...

Just a few comments before I hastily get deleted.

For those readers here other than DS, who knows he's deliberately misrepresenting what I said, I would point out that AT NO POINT did I say I hated fundamentalists. If you care to stray from UD and actually look at ATBC, you will see this.

I also explain what I meant by 'enslave' and 'indoctrinate' in the message. I wouldn't retract a single word of it.

I also wrote this, which Dave chose not to point out:

"Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose."

The whole quote is this:

"There are millions of people in this country who believe that fundamentalists are actually doing a huge amount of harm to this country. Fundamentalist movements are trying to destroy, control or censor science, and to dictate laws that would restrict the freedom or criminalize the beliefs of people who disagree with them. That is very corrosive to American society, and I see nothing wrong at all at attacking THAT mindset. Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose. Aggressive fundamentalism is a different thing, tho, in that it seeks to enslave and dominate others. It's a political movement. As such, attacking it is fair game."

Again, I wouldn't retract any of it.

I would say in closing that considering that DaveScot routinely refers to the Panda's Thumb people as 'church burners', he is in no position to preach to others about civility.

I'm sure that last comment will get me tossed very quickly.

I would note in passing that even tho DT was foaming at the mouth, none of the respondees seemed terribly interested in my 'hate speech', and were all talking about other stuff.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:07:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,07<!--emo&:0)
Science can't say the FSM doesn't exist either!  Woo hoo!  FSM must therefore exist and is real and scientific!

Indeed, if you're Thordaddy, the fact of millions of people believing in a deity proves its existence.

By this 'logic', the god(s) of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism must all be real, given the millions of people who believe them. Moreover, the lack of a creator god posited by Buddhism is ALSO true.

So Jehovah, Allah, and Shiva all exist. And none of them created the world, and all of them did. The cosmos are a more complicated place than I thought...

Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:12:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,11:04)
Arden, your comment will probably never even see the light of day.

Indeed, it still ain't there and no doubt never will be.

This is rather anticlimactic...  :p

Anyway, I'll try and post one more message there just to confirm that I'm already banned.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:29:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,11:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,11:12)
Indeed, it still ain't there and no doubt never will be.

This is rather anticlimactic...  :p

Anyway, I'll try and post one more message there just to confirm that I'm already banned.

You probably aren't banned, per se, yet.  You are probably in a holding pattern until DaveSlot can come by and ban you "properly."

I see, at UD there's banned, and then there's banned.

All very subtle.

Anyway, I just posted a second response, which also will probably never appear.

Also, I can't seem to log in anymore, so presumably my banning is already in effect. So now I can join the club with everybody else.

Dave's a piece of work. He talks about you with a bunch of lies, then bars you from responding. Obviously he has such superior ethics than all of us wicked Darwinists. Makes me so ashamed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some churches to burn... :p

Date: 2006/03/29 05:36:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
The only antievolution 'teachings' I can recall from my childhood were from when I was about 9. My big sister, who was in college, told me that someone had told her (she didn't believe it) that not only were dinosaurs not real, but that God specifically put them there to 'test people's faith' -- that is, to identify the good xtians, who would no doubt clap their hands over their ears and insist that they were only a couple thousand years old at most. The people that God had succeeded in fooling with the dinosaur bones would presumably go to he11.

Even at age 9 that sounded like the most ridiculous load of crap I'd ever  heard.

Of course I now know that as creationist claims go, it's entirely normal.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:46:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
HEY! DS posted my response!

Check it out now while you can! Comment 19.

No boldface snarls inserted by Dave. Yet.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:55:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I now realize it can take 30-40 minutes for a comment to appear at UD. Okay, whatever. Every other blog I post at the comments appear right away.

Anyway, for giggles, I just posted THIS, which I also wrote here yesterday when I should have been working:

The reason people attack fundamentalists at PT is because ID & Creationism are not scientific movements, but religious/political movements. If it were not for fundamentalism, American fundamentalism at that, there would be no ID or creationism. Therefore I don't think arguing with people's religious motives is uncalled for under those circumstances. IDC is about nothing if not religious motives.

That said, I do think there are people at PT who go overboard with attacking religion. But when fundamentalists step over into trying to mandate their beliefs over everyone else, then they lose the right for people to not say anything negative about their motives. If fundamentalist Christians kept their religion out of politics, didn't try to take civil rights away from people they dislike, didn't try and change what was taught in schools, and didn't try and subvert science with a lot of dishonest nonsense, I wouldn't be bothered by them in the least. It wouldn't be my business.

Again, we shall see at which point I cross over the boundaries of DT's tolerance.  :p

Date: 2006/03/29 06:09:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Well, DT inserted some peevish comments, but for some reason not in boldface. (I was hoping for one of his little zingers telling me I'm out. Maybe later?) He mostly just gets on my case for not already knowing how his lame software works (like I said, I've never been to another blog that works that way). However, he does come up with this gem of Davetardian doublespeak:

I don’t ban anyone, actually. I just put them on permanent moderation status then seldom if ever approve any comments they submit.

Ooookayyyyy. I stand, uh, 'corrected'.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:18:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 29 2006,12<!--emo&:0)
I'm a long time lurker and regular reader of Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb.  I occasionally scope out Uncommon Pissant but I ususally don't stay long because the lack of logic and honesty quickly starts to irritate me.

Anyway, it hit me this morning with an earlier post.  What if DaveTard is really Dembski's alias?  Wouldn't that make sense?  I've never understood why WAD would allow the nonsense that DaveTard posts to appear on a regular basis and essentially hijack the blog unless DaveTard is just an outlet for Dembski's alterego.  Notice how rarely WAD posts on his own blog! Until DaveTard started piping up, Dembski would post short responses occasionally but I haven't seen one from him since he "semiretired" a few months ago.  Since then, it has been all DaveTard.  I think this hypothesis deserves some research.  If you have any evidence to support this, please post it.


Dembski and DaveScot aren't the same person. They have separate, verifiable biographies for one thing. Dembski never worked at Dell. DaveScot never got canned from Baylor.

As for why on earth Dembski should hand over his blog to a buffoon like DS, this question has been discussed endlessly here and at PT. There's no obvious answer, but the consensus seems to be that Dembski wanted someone to run UD in a very authoritarian manner but beyond that didn't really care what happened to the site anymore. DS has actually alienated many of the loyal followers UD had when Dembski ran the site (e.g., Josh Bozeman), so I can't imagine this is 'beneficial' to UD, but if Dembski just didn't give a sh1t anymore, that would explain it.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:24:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Arden, you're famous. I'm so jealous.

No fooling, a whole thread at UD dedicated to little old anonymous ME. I just have street cred coming out my EARS now!

Now all I need is to get officially banned and to burn a few churches and I'll be complete.  :p

Are you banned yet, Alan? I suppose if you provoked DT enough, you could get a whole thread at UD dedicated to you, too!

Date: 2006/03/29 06:40:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Jesus, if this wasn't all so trivial, I might just get a swelled head from all this attention. Check out the backhanded compliment DT just paid me (boldfaced this time! ) :

You shouldn’t find it surprising that your reputation precedes you here

My reputation precedes me! First time I've ever been told that. Almost makes me regret using a fake name. Almost.

Then he snarls some more about me not reading his moderation policy. He fails to realize I just don't care enough about his moderation policy to read it.

Then someone named 'gandalf' starts ragging on me for unfairly stereotyping fundamentalists, patiently explains the incredibly important difference between fundamentalists and evangelists, and claims that of course Christians have no interest in passing laws against people of different beliefs. Sure. Whatever.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:49:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 29 2006,12:28)
Do we have any independent verification that DaveScot is David Springer? I don't doubt that David Springer worked at Dell, but I wonder if DaveScot and his supposed history is just a cover for Dembski.  

I assume there *is* independent verification that DaveScot = David Springer, but offhand I don't know what it is. Others who've been following DT's antics longer than me would know what the evidence is.

WD & DS also have very different styles of expressing themselves. If WD had created DS as some kind of alter ego, he must have multiple personality disorder to do it so convincingly.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:55:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 29 2006,12:44)
I reckon I've been banned a few times, Arden; the registrations I can remember offhand are: Alan, Alan Fox MrAlanFox, some obscure name I can't remember, Reynard, Renard. My latest, Xavier, is in the limbo of perpetual moderation.

I can't understand how PuckSR and KeithS could stay posting for so long, and I would get the chop after a few posts, before I had a chance to whip out that witty one liner that would leave pervyDavy speechless.(Have you heard about the peeping tom trips Dave organises).

No more trips for you retard (get it? Retard/Renard) you're overboard. -dt.

Maybe try 'lisitsa'? That's the Russian word for 'fox'. I could come up with others if you wanted.

Oh shoot, now I've blown your cover.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:42:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,13:31)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,12:40)
Then someone named 'gandalf' starts ragging on me for unfairly stereotyping fundamentalists, patiently explains the incredibly important difference between fundamentalists and evangelists, and claims that of course Christians have no interest in passing laws against people of different beliefs. Sure. Whatever.

Maybe someone should point out to gandalf where the DI gets a large chunk of its funding *cough Ahmanson cough* and what that organization stands for *cough reconstruction cough*.

Good point. I'd do it, except that I just posted a rather provocative comment to DS's toadies about 45 minutes ago, it's still not there, and I might finally be banned now.

Oh, whoops, sorry, I forgot: Dave doesn't ban people! Never mind!

Date: 2006/03/29 07:57:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Well, DT posted my response, but with one of his peevish comments pre-embedded in it:

ME: "Calling people who believe in evolution ‘church burners’ isn’t ‘a popular politically driven caricature which has no basis in fact’?"

DT: As hyperbole approaches truth it becomes more difficult to distinguish between the two. If I called you all steaming piles of dung that somehow acquired vocal cords and learned how to speak you’d know right away that was hyperbole, right? I find it interesting that you don’t immediately recognize “church burners” as hyperbole. The Great Bard penned a line for this occasion (Dawkins would call this a meme so you can safely embrace it without ruining your rep): “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. Another applicable idiom: “If the shoe fits, wear it” and yet another “The truth hurts”. Maybe you should stop protesting and acting so much like you’ve been hurt. Just a suggestion. -ds

So our pal DaveTard was just kidding all along!

Shoot, what do I have to do to get banned from that stupid site??? Accuse Dave of having been one of the people who sent a death threat to Judge Jones? I need closure!

Date: 2006/03/29 08:16:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Okay, I just poked the gorilla with a stick again. Let's see if this gets my ass booted out of there.

I can't spend all day on this. I have work to do and churches to burn.

(PS: Dave? That's hyperbole! )

Date: 2006/03/29 08:20:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold?

Date: 2006/03/29 08:47:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,14:36)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,14:20)
You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold?

I wouldn't believe it if there weren't empirical evidence (whether it is measureable or not.)  So, therefore, only one person is needed, because that one person would not believe without empirical evidence, which thus proves that the empirical evidence exists.

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:19:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
As for religious socks, that has only been a problem since the Fall.

No, seems to me like I was noticing it all the way back last Summer.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:37:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (improvius @ Mar. 29 2006,15:27)
As a Fundamentalinest, all I have to say is that you are all going to heck for forsaking the holy line and embracing the evil of tumble-dry.  Today it's sucking your socks.  Tomorrow it will be sucking your souls.

All I can say is, you guys are clearly LIKELY to set a fundamentalist church on fire. Therefore, you've basically done so.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:49:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,15:39)
Arden, you're doing this all wrong. You don't have to provoke or insult anyone to get banned by DS.
He may be who he is, but he is gifted in the ways of the internets. He'll keep you there, moderating your comments first and picking the juicier ones to show up, thereby demonstrating what an intolerant, insulting bunch we evilutionists are. You'd actually be working for him.

You want a sure-fire banning strategy? Start having calm and polite conversations, avoiding any provokings and simply arguing.
Pretty soon your comments will start disappearing forever, and after a while you'll get an "I don't think you fit well in here" shove.
In reality, it's not flaming and mockery Dave hates on UD: On the contrary, he can put that to good use. What infuriates him is when someone simply and calmly lays all the "arguments" of him and his hounds to waste.
Try it: I give you 10 posts tops.

I'm sure you're right, but that sounds like too much work to be spending on anyone even vaguely like Dave.

Anyway, check it out -- I seem to be really pissing him off now. The turnaround time for my posts is now down to about 2 minutes.

Hmmm. This just came thru the transom:

Come back soon, but not too soon, if you get my drift.

I may have to accept this as the closest I'm going to get to a real banning today.

Date: 2006/03/29 10:15:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Mar. 29 2006,16:10)

I have been reading this thread for quite some time now, and I find it quite humorous. Not to derail Arden's current foray at UD, but I saw this quote and knew you guys would appreciate it.

DaveScot, you’re a genius and technically qualified to comment while I am not.

33% right, I'd say.

Don't worry about derailing my foray. It's pretty much wrapped up. Besides, I feel all unclean now. If I don't post for the next 3 hours, it's because I'm in the shower trying to get all that off UD me.

Date: 2006/03/29 10:41:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,16:32)
Hey Arden, I can't believe I missed this:

Besides, last I checked, those church fires WERE SET BY A BUNCH OF BOYS FROM NICE CHRISTIAN FAMILIES, not some wicked urban atheist evolutionists. Remember???

Maybe they were adopted.

Evilutionism is a genetic trait! W00t!

Indeed. I wonder how long ago the trait evolved. I suspect it's recessive.

If nothing else, my excursion into Planet Tard seems to have provided us with many new Dave Classics, so it wasn't a total waste of time.

YOU are the waste of time. And I don't tolerate people wasting my time here. You're gone.-dt

I just wanna know why the UD posters accepted his excuse that his comments were 'hyperbole', while they wouldn't accept that excuse when I tried it.

Try this: you're gone, dumb bunny.-dt

Date: 2006/03/29 11:17:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,17:07)
Oh and what about Desockism, that theory that says you don't even need gnomes, because after constantly spinning in the Wheel of Dryrma, the sock eventually transcends its sockiness and becomes nothing?
Boy, those guys are all holier-than-thou, claiming they're pacifists and such, but I know of many a sockfight done in their sect's name.... Sometimes even with socks stuffed with tissue-paper. The horror!

Faid, you’re a genius and technically qualified to comment while I am not.

Date: 2006/03/29 12:27:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Purty easy to see why Dave deletes himself so much, eh?

But he doesn't.

Dave Scot said so.

Dave says he doesn't. I say he does. That means both statements are true.

Oh shlt. NOW what?

Date: 2006/03/29 12:31:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2006,17:42)
Purty easy to see why Dave deletes himself so much, eh?

Hey, Dave says we have always been at war with Eastasia, and I'm gonna trust him on that.

Date: 2006/03/30 04:21:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,09:52)
Dave, you can't just tell us what the ID research program looks like in that area? He's probably too busy doing ID experiments to answer.

DT may not have any research program to point to, but thanks to PT, we now know about their ID model:

Date: 2006/03/30 04:55:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,10:34)
It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure.

Comment by dougmoran — March 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm

Okay, look, I TOLD you last time you cited that quote it took 6 months off my lifespan just reading it and who KNOWS how many brain cells it cost me. So don't do it again.

(I like how DougMoron always misspells 'atheist', like it's the superlative of an adjective: "George may be athy, but PZ is the athiest one of all". I'd almost think it's deliberate.)

Date: 2006/03/30 05:30:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,11:20)
all mimsy were the Doug Morons
and the Dave Tards outgrabe

Uh oh. 666 posts for you, Steve. This confirms everything the UD people have been saying about you, you church burner!!!!!

Date: 2006/03/30 06:12:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Funny how those who most want the destruction of the separation of church and state are (a) the most adamant that it will never happen, (b) the most sanguine that it wouldn't cause anything bad to happen,  c) the most adamant that ID has nothing to do with religion at all, goodness no, and (d) the most deeply offended that anyone would ever claim that's what they want.

Usually all 4 at once.

Date: 2006/03/30 06:20:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hey, check this out! Thordaddy thinks a zygote is conscious, but he doesn't think a new-born is! Wow. That's certainly a new take on the science of consciousness…

I'm not too surprised. Generally the religious right loses all interest in children the second they're born.

Date: 2006/03/30 07:47:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I'm just relieved that SteveStory's count is up to 667 now. He probably won't burn any churches anymore. Probably.

Date: 2006/03/30 07:54:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 30 2006,13:41)
Look you church burning atheist scumbag. ID is not religious. Got that, you spawn of Satan!?-ds

And by way, I'm an agnostic. But you're still an atheist scumbag. Got that?-dt

Oh, one more thing? You're outta here. Homo.-dt

Date: 2006/03/30 07:59:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,13:54)
I wonder why they haven't put up an area at uncommonly dense devoted to mocking Panda's Thumb. Perhaps because we already came up for the best name for such a site, The Panda's Bum, and they want neither to give us credit or use an inferior name.

Because none of the UD regulars are anywhere near imaginative or creative enough to pull it off. Besides, most of them seem to be completely humorless, unless you count things like DT making fun of Wesley's name or Nick Matzke's accent.

Maybe it's also because it would diminish the reputation for scientific seriousness of purpose they're trying to maintain.

Date: 2006/03/30 08:44:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
UD is the gift that keeps on giving...

(Jim Wynne at PT caught this one.)

Note DT's correction as it stands now:

Update: Awe shucks. It looks like I was wrong. The adversary is Dr. Robert C. Newman who was awarded a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from (Ivy League) Cornell in 1967. Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography. What’s next for Nick, a doctorate in basket weaving from the ITT Technical Institute? Theoretical Astrophysics is pretty much your stereotypical rocket science and far beyond Nick’s meager intellectual abilities. My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.

Now, is that 'abject apology' line at the end of the paragraph there a recent addition, or did I just miss it first time? Are we actually seeing Dave being abject? ? ?

Either way, it's nice to see that DT has accepted angels as an integral part of the scientific landscape.

Date: 2006/03/30 08:50:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
BTW Arden...
That comment about the religious-right was completely unwarranted

Perhaps you're right. They also seem to take a keen interest in what they're allowed to hear in school.

Date: 2006/03/30 10:24:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Mar. 30 2006,16:14)
The "abject" comment was there at 10:58 this morning, when I posted on this thread. Page 64, 10 posts from the bottom.

Ah, I see. Hm. So perhaps it was in the 'first draft'.

Anyway, it's a minor point compared to the overall delightful spectacle of Dave doing a 180 degree turn from ridiculing someone mercilessly to abjectly bowing and scraping before them.

Date: 2006/03/30 11:04:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I just read the article, then I read the post on Panda’s Thumb and all the comments. It is a constant stream of ridicule and spitefulness. Not a single constructive comment on the whole thing. Very hostile and closedminded

It is a shame. None of the PT crowd will openmindedly consider just how helpful angels could be in any explanation of the workings of evolution.

(Even though Dave also thought the article was ridiculous when HE first read it! )   :p

Date: 2006/03/30 13:27:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 30 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Are you claiming Dave Scots opinions are biased? Shame on you! He is a computer genius and far more qualified in biology than a biologist.

I know this to be true, Dave Scot said so.

Well that makes it true.

But I believe DS is not a genius, so therefore, he isn't, either.

Oh shlt. Not that problem again!

Date: 2006/03/30 15:56:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,21:32)

“He quotes ID proponents that make metaphysical statements in order to discredit them, yet on his very own blog Myers makes a habit of proselytizing his atheism.”

I always thought that Myers is an atheist or agnostic. Then I read this. What do you all think of his claim to be a Christian?

Comment by crandaddy — March 30, 2006 @ 7:44 pm


You linked to a comment made by PvM, not PZ.

Comment by Qualiatative — March 30, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.

Date: 2006/03/31 04:21:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 31 2006,09:55)
Talk about angels, it IS scientific, look!:

[long quote from Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Just in case there's any confusion, "Landoverbaptist" is a spoof. I've seen a lot of people - mostly from outside America - that don't realize this. And who can blame them? I was sure Newman's piece was a hoax. At this point, I assign it to the unknowable, like so much of anti-evolution. It's impossible to tell the difference between a hoax and the real thing. Either Newman is nuts, or he's a high-level mole from our side of the Looking Glass.

But Landover is a spoof. I'm sure of that.

Landover Baptist IS a spoof. It's apparently done by some refugee from Liberty University or something. But the remarkable thing is how many Christians DON'T know it's a spoof -- for mind-boggling verification of this, check out LB's letters section. About 90% of the letters are from people who think it's real but are appalled (YOU GUYS ARE SICK! HOW CAN YOU TELL KIDS TO TURN IN THERE [sic] PARENTS? THATS NOT WHAT JESUS PREACHED I WILL PRAY FOR YOU), another 9% think it's real but approve of it (I THOUGHT YOU'RE [sic] ARTICLE ON DEMONIC POSSESSION WAS VERY INTERESTING), and about 1% know it's a joke and are very cross about it (YOU ALL THINK THIS IS A BIG JOKE THIS IS JUST HATE SPEECH I HOPE YOU GET AIDS AND DIE I WILL PRAY FOR YOU). Then there's the once-in-a-blue-moon letter by someone who gets the joke and thinks it's funny.

LB does have a disclaimer where it describes itself as a 'parody', but it's not in a very prominent place and maybe most of these readers don't know what the word 'parody' means.

This all makes some points about how much of a self-parody American Fundamentalism has become, but that's too obvious to go into...

Date: 2006/03/31 04:41:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
WTF? Is this like the fourth thread here devoted to Thordaddy? ? ?

Date: 2006/03/31 04:52:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
It might be enlightening to re-examine Dave's 'explanation':

Here’s what happened. I glanced at Newman’s article, saw it was some whacky treatment on angels, and dismissed it as nonsense. I thought it was a pretty cheap shot for Matzke to point it out (cherry picking; taking the low hanging fruit). So I wrote the initial trackback saying congratulating Nick for finally discovering the level where he could be a player. Then I thought maybe I ought to see who Newman is as maybe he’s really a genius out of Matzke’s league and forgot to take his meds or something when he wrote about the angels. Lo and behold I find the guy’s got a degree in theoretical astrophysics from Cornell. Granted in 1967 and a lot can damage a mind in 40 years but even so, once upon a time Newman was an egghead’s egghead and even if he doesn’t have two brain cells left to rub together today that’s still out of Matzke’s junior-league baby-bottle ballpark so I took it back.

This doesn't tell us anything we didn't know, but it is quite interesting as a glimpse into DT's mindset, and his groupie-like worship of people with things like physics PhD's. He's essentially telling us here that no matter how full of shlt and crackbrained Newman is, he's still 'way out of Matzke's league', simply because he has a PhD in physics and Matzke does not. Essentially, if you have a physics PhD and you're 'on Dave's side' you're always more right than anyone without that kind of degree who disagrees with Dave, no matter how senile you might later get.

It begs the question of how relevant a physics PhD is to ID research, since DT does not extend this kind of deference to biology PhD's, but given DT's, uh, autodidact background, it's not too surprising that he'd be rather confused about this.

Anyway, DT never lets us down.

Date: 2006/03/31 05:58:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 31 2006,11:52) DaveScot actually being witty here...or is he just an idiot?

There's no way to tell, but I have my suspicions.

This hasn't been a good week for poor old DaveDell, especially not yesterday. I wonder if this will chasten him a bit, or if he'll just dust himself off & publicly humiliate himself with the same abandon we've all come to know and love. Thank god Dembski handed his blog over to him.

Date: 2006/03/31 06:05:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 31 2006,11:59)
Ok...sorry to double post...but you must read this
Uncommon Pissant
Scientists discovered the minimal genome size needed for the first life increased by a factor of 2.

the article is here

Now, this is all fine and dandy....but you will notice something as you read the article....

The scientists who made this abiogenesis complicating discovery....used the theory of evolution.  If they didnt use the theory of couldnt claim that abiogenesis was more improbable.

So in other words...IDist are now celebrating a study based on Evolutionary Theory, because evolutionary theory proves that abiogenesis was more complex....
forget for a moment that they oppose the theory of evolution...and this all makes sense

Isnt irony fun boys and girls?

I've noticed this for a while -- ID people, the ones with the more scientific pretensions at least, constantly leech off the work of researchers who take the theory of evolution as a given. They do this in an attempt to destroy evolution. And at the same time, they always go on about how evolution is 'unnecessary to do science'.

I suppose in their defense IDers could reply that they have to use evolutionists' research since they have none of their own, but still...

Date: 2006/03/31 06:34:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ Mar. 31 2006,12:28)

And let me add something here:

The blindwatchmaker advocates will counter by saying the first life didn’t have to come all in one step. Strictly speaking that’s correct, but the Fundamental Theorem of Intelligent Design shows that a pathway involving an evolutionary path is actually even more improbable than random chance evolving the first primitive replicator to the first life.

Comment by scordova — March 31, 2006 @ 11:28 am

Oh, well if THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN says so then it must be true.

You are finally seeing the light, I will let this one pass -ds

Good to see Sal's back in action.

Date: 2006/03/31 08:56:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (egbooth @ Mar. 31 2006,14:18)
Since my comment on UD has not seen the light of day, and probably won't because DaveTard is just a little too sensitive...I'll post here.

Trust me, having your expertise insulted by DaveScot is one of the best things that could ever happen to you.

Date: 2006/03/31 14:34:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 31 2006,20:29)
Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I’m surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn’t live at the same time.

Does Davetard know that some of his peers there at Uncommonly Dense, like Salvadork, believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time?

Maybe one of us should register there under an assumed name and argue with Dave about it?

Date: 2006/03/31 16:01:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 31 2006,21:15)

Maybe one of us should register there under an assumed name and argue with Dave about it?

I'd really rather that you didn't. I personally don't crack into other sites where I've been told I'm not welcome. I don't approve of the practice when it is done against my wishes, and can't condone it being done elsewhere, either. I know that's not a popular stance, but there it is.

I was joking, Wes.

What I was proposing was going to UD and telling Dave that dinosaurs did too live at the same time as humans. I think it would cause him a lot of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand he doesn't want to alienate people who think the Earth is 5,000 years old, but on the other I'd be disagreeing with him. He'd be quite conflicted, I think.

BTW, Larry's been posting for over a week at PT. This week he's 'J Simes'.

Date: 2006/04/01 04:55:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 01 2006,06:54)
"It's not ID that says that, it's you evilutionists that teach our children dinosaurs and humans lived together! You're outta here, pal!"

...I envy you, Tiax. Your exit from UD provided us with more Dave-related hilariousness than that of most others.

I'm way jealous. Tiax got officially banned, complete with one of DS's zingers. All I got was urged to leave and 'not come back too soon if you get my drift'.

Oh well, at least he told me 'my reputation preceded me'. I find solace in that.  :p

Date: 2006/04/01 06:17:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ April 01 2006,11:55)
I haven't been following the antics at UD. Could someone just summarize? Is Tiax a sensible person trying to confront the asylum inmates with sense, or is Tiax an IDer still trying to reconcile ID and reality?

The former, tho he should summarize himself. :)

Date: 2006/04/01 08:38:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 01 2006,13:54)
I was joking, Wes.

Only just noticed this.  I thought the correct reply is "That was hyperbole".


That's exactly the kind of moral relativism I'd expect from one of you church burners.

Date: 2006/04/01 08:55:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 01 2006,14:45)
DaveScot is starting to spar with BarryA.

This issue is whether a minority of the population can get a constitutional amendment passed. Here is how BarryA described himself:
My name is Barry Arrington. I am an attorney in Denver, Colorado specializing in complex litigation and constitutional law. My passion is defending constitutional liberties, especially those guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This could get interesting.

Uh oh. Is he daring to disagree with the ex-Marine??

Date: 2006/04/01 14:41:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Wes, Larry is STILL posting at the "The next time ID people cry censorship' thread. Any way to get him deleted, especially since he threatened to start posting under my name if I didn't leave him alone about it?

Date: 2006/04/01 15:25:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 01 2006,21<!--emo&:0)
Davetard apparently wants to put Intelligent Design in schools via an amendment to the US constitution.

Steve, if you looked into it, you'd find that all new successful scientific movements got their start by being mandated by the constitution.

Date: 2006/04/01 15:56:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 01 2006,21:33)
[quote=stevestory,April 01 2006,21<!--emo&:0]Davetard apparently wants to put Intelligent Design in schools via an amendment to the US constitution.

To be fair, he does not say that directly. Also in that same thread he expressed revolusion to the idea of the federal government determining educational standards.

Ya gotta hand it to Dave, he's not afraid of looking foolish...

This is the standard wingnut mindset, really. They love 'state's rights' unless the state in question chooses something liberal. They're deathly opposed to federal government meddling in local affairs, unless they think it'll get them what they want. Then they all start talking about constitutional amendments. And they constantly invoke national opinion polls to justify their agenda, then they gleefully talk about getting amendments through with a minority of American voters.

Date: 2006/04/02 09:32:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 02 2006,13:51)


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Why would a Darwinian be so blind to the power of selection? Ebola rained down from above would kill the smart as well as the stupid, the strong as well as the weak. I’m thinking, hey, as long as we’re talking about how to fix a problem why not take the initiative. This is what Marines do, take the initiative. So instead of ebola raining down from above how about MIRVs raining down from above. We’ve already got enough and according to the loony left someone ready to do it with his finger on “the button”. This solves yet another problem at the same time - nuclear proliferation. Use ‘em or lose ‘em! Someone run this by Pianka for me to see what he thinks. I need a mass extermination Darwinian expert’s opinion on this. Maybe he can help work out a good target list.

Comment by DaveScot — April 2, 2006 @ 8:36 am



Your solution also solves another problem — global warming. Remember in the 80’s how Sagan was running around spewing about nuclear winter. Well, if the left is right about global warming now and they were right about nuclear winter then, if one combines the two one gets “global just right.”

Comment by BarryA — April 2, 2006 @ 8:51 am



Good point. If global warming is such a big problem and popping off thousands of nukes will cause a nuclear winter, shouldn’t popping off a few hundred nukes just serve to arrest global warming in its tracks? We shouldn’t even have to do it all at once. We could do like 50 per year and measure the effect each year. The Gobi would be the perfect place. Nothing lives there so it won’t make much difference if a few billion tons of Gobi sand is turned into stratospheric dust.

Why hasn’t anyone suggested this before?

Say, this is off topic but did you know you can rearrange the letters in “Darwinists” to spell “Rats, ID wins”. Spooky.

Comment by DaveScot — April 2, 2006 @ 11:57 am

After reading this exhange, I did not know whether I should laugh or cry.

In the biz, this is known as 'eliminationist rhetoric'. Not uncommon these days. Wingnut gets frustrated that the wicked liberals won't just disappear, wingnut openly fantasizes about having them all killed.

If it needed to be pointed out, it further confirms that DaveTard's agenda is purely political. It's also a sign of his desperation.

Date: 2006/04/02 15:48:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 02 2006,20:07)
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if the governments are planning something like this right now. I mean overpopulation is a serious problem (Mass genocide is not the answer to the problem, but the problem exists, nonetheless.) It’s not like they would announce their plans to the world. I’m sure if something like this were to be done, the “fittest” members of society would be the ones picked to be spared.

Comment by crandaddy — April 2, 2006 @ 5:12 pm

Aren't there rational conservatives out there who are embarrassed by these freaks?

Date: 2006/04/03 10:34:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 03 2006,14:44)
Steve, if you and Arden hadn't got carried away, and wasted all that time church-burning, our plans for a global genocide wouldn't be so off-schedule.
If we don't hurry, we're gonna fall behind even further than the Wedge goals. Shape up, people!

Actually, in an attempt to get caught up, I've decided to go to the Gobi desert and burn down a church with a nuclear bomb with Ebola virus in it.

Darwin made me do it.

Date: 2006/04/03 10:40:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2006,15:30)
Btw, if you follow the link for the lass who wrote this, she is clearly another dedicated biologist who agrees with ID.
I know. That's one impressive thing about the ID movement. So many ID supporters are experts in biology. Why, it seems one can hardly get an advanced degree in biology without turning into an ID supporter.

Well, what I've always appreciated about ID is its egalitarian, non-elitist nature. ID has never demanded any expertise in biology, or even in the sciences of any kind, to become an expert. Essentially anyone who feels strongly about it is qualified to be an expert in intelligent design. How many sciences can claim that?

Date: 2006/04/03 10:45:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
As I continue my thoughts on Intelligent Design and Creation over the next few posts, bear in mind that all my comments are based on an unshakable belief that we will never make a scientific “discovery” that contradicts Scripture.

While there's certainly nothing new, insightful, or even halfway intelligent about that comment, one could have a whole mini-discussion just dissecting her use of quotes around the word 'discovery'.

Date: 2006/04/03 18:20:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ April 03 2006,21:55)
Re "How about this...can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?"

Relative to which source of gravity? Lifting on Earth would be a bunch easier than lifting off a neutron star.

One consideration that comes to mind here, though, is that there is an upper limit to the mass that a stone could possess - if it's own mass is strong enough to collapse it's molecules, then it ain't a stone anymore. :)


The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"

EDIT: Oh shoot, GCT beat me to it...

Date: 2006/04/03 18:24:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ April 03 2006,21:58)
Hmm - didn't ID have a "five year plan", or something like that, one to two decades ago? What happened with that?


You mean this?:


Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

[They're a little, uh, behind schedule.]

Date: 2006/04/04 04:22:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 04 2006,06:18)
The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"

Also, could he draw a triangle where the internal angles don't add up to 180 degrees.

Edit: and no he can't use spherical geometry.

Hey, if Our Lord wants to use spherical geometry, certainly none of us are in a position to stop Him.

Date: 2006/04/04 04:39:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2006,09:26)

The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"
I started involuntarily laughing when I heard that. I've never heard that before.

I confess I ripped it off from the Simpsons.

Date: 2006/04/04 04:46:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 04 2006,09:35)
PZ is just jealous that another biologist, an overnight sensation no less, got a more militant reputation than Meyers’ own. Evidently Church Burning isn’t good enough anymore. Should we change their affectionate nick from Church Burners to Earth Scorchers in honor of Dr. “Doom” Pianka? -ds

Way ahead of you, Dave. I've already changed my nickname from "Church-Burnin' Faid" to "Faid the Doombringer". Much more of a hit with the ladies.

I'll leave the "nuclear cleansing" idea to you, however. It's true, the other two connections were also your doing; but this was your puppy from the beginning, and I wouldn't want to get mixed up in a copyright dispute with you. You seem like a really intimidating guy.

OK, the red phone from the Doctor just rang, we have a go. Commencing banning on my mark: Three, two... -dt

Are we witnessing the beginning of a process where DT is simply giving up on the whole 'science thing', and transitioning to a simple 24-7 'culture wars' blog? Lately it seems like he's making even less effort to put forward arguments that have any connection to physical reality, and shifting to just making up shlt about his 'opponents'.

I mean, I admit, there never was much in the first place, but it seems like he's not even pretending anymore...

Date: 2006/04/04 04:50:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,09:33)
I really haven't spent much time involved in science.
I have spent almost 72 years on this earth.

I think I understand now.

Date: 2006/04/04 05:43:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 04 2006,10:10)
Oh crap. I tried to ever so subtlely change my nick to a cooler one, but Arden caught me...
Okay, okay guys. I'll be the Doombringer: Destroyer of Worlds is up for grabs. Better hurry though, cause I'll start using both.

PS: I think you have a point, Arden. Doesn't matter though, since the validity of their arguments will remain stuck to zero...

Hmmm. Sorry 'bout that. Want me to go back and edit my message to reflect a cooler name? :-)

"Burner of Churches" seems like another obvious choice.

Date: 2006/04/04 05:53:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ April 04 2006,10:42)

Uh oh, don't look now, but our fiendish plot with the ACLU has been uncovered!  Foiled again!  I hope this doesn't lead to evolution's Waterloo.

I hear DaveScot has a list of 205 professors in America who are known to academia as being members of the ACLU, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of their universities.

Date: 2006/04/04 06:06:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2006,10:16)
Maybe he's chafing at how limited his options are. He doesn't know anything about science, this 'theory' he's signed onto is just double-talk, his fellow travellers are all obvious religious loons. There's only so many ways he can fill the air, you know?

I think you're right. I bet DT wanted to be some kind of bargain-basement Rush Limbaugh in his retirement, and he figured since the field of BBRL's is rather glutted these days, the whole ID shtick was a good niche market. But his loyal followers are obvious doofuses, actual scientists all make fun of him, and try as he may, he can't get the science right when he tries to do it. So I think he's getting frustrated. I think the main thing he's always enjoyed most is slandering and bullying people anyway, so who can blame him for shifting to what he's best at?

Date: 2006/04/04 06:11:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,11:06)
Popes, this thread is not about evolution.  It is about
I believe in an IDOL. (Intelligent designer of life)

If you have two ears, which came first?  The right
or left?

What is your 6th sense?  Surely science should know.


I knew people in college who talked like this. Granted, it was usually after they'd taken a lot of LSD, but still...

Date: 2006/04/04 07:00:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Julie Stahlhut @ April 04 2006,11:44)
Three weeks in Italy, and the mention of the notion that nature might give objective evidence of being designed can only seem like suffering/persecution to the most objectionably spoiled human beings in recorded history.

Without my having to endure the toothache-inducing experience of wading around UD, what is he even talking about here?

Date: 2006/04/04 07:19:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Julie Stahlhut @ April 04 2006,11:44)
And I also don't get this "high priest of Darwinism" thing that I found earlier in the thread.  Can I become a high priestess of Darwinism? Would I get to perform weddings?  And wear really neat satin robes?  And be tax-exempt and stuff?

It basically means you get to participate in the wicked secularist conspiracy to stifle freedom of speech in academia. And you get invited to all the human sacrifices.

Oh yeah, we also have a really cool secret handshake and monthly pancake dinners.

Date: 2006/04/04 12:52:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (steve_h @ April 04 2006,17:41)
Quote (GCT @ April 04 2006,13:21)

Um, I thought we were talking about triangles, not photon energy?

They are the same thing: - 351,000 hits.

Likewise, googling the phrases "italian language" and "spanish language" together generates 1.59 million hits. I can't see how this could mean anything other than that Italian and Spanish are the same language.

Date: 2006/04/04 16:31:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I just thought of something. If a gay gene were to 'refute evolution', by default wouldn't that mean the gay gene was designed? And since God, WHOOPS I mean the Intelligent Designer supposedly hates gays so much, why would he design a gay gene?

It's quite a conundrum. Right up there with the Jesus-microwaving-a-burrito paradox.

(Hmm. Maybe the Intelligent Designer designed a gay gene for the same reason he put dinosaur bones on earth, to test people to see if they stayed faithful and to punish them brutally if they didn't?)

Date: 2006/04/05 05:07:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I realize it's a total waste of time to argue with certain people, but here goes anyway...

I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  

'Political pressure'? From the mighty liberal gay lobby in Washington DC? Who on earth would THEY be?

The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin

'Sin' is a subjective religious construct, TD. Science cannot prove or disprove it. And no, science and religion are not the same thing.

and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  

'Legitimate' is not a verb, TD.

But what would it REALLY MEAN to find a "gay gene?"  We must find a unique "modification" in self-avowed and/or practicing homosexuals.  But then the question becomes... is this really a "gay gene" or a bad mutation?  I don't think there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for survival... evolution's only purpose.

"Evolution must conform to my massively oversimplified characterization of it, or it is not valid".

Where have I seen that before?

Incidentally, you seem to have edited it out, but in a previous message you went on about how disease-prone and domestic violence-prone homosexuals were, and why this was evidence we should teach children in schools that gays are bad. Two questions: (a) I think your 'higher rates of domestic violence' claim is horseshlt. Got actual proof of it, from someone other than James Dobson? And (b) should kids be taught the fact that LESBIANS are less prone to sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals? If not, why not?

Date: 2006/04/05 05:29:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I just wish the PT gang could be consistent about bouncing Larry's messages. They only ever bother to do it in about a third of the threads that he infects.

Also they're not consistent about what they do with Larry's messages -- half the time they're deleted, and half the time they come here. I doubt this is the result of any specific policy.

Either way, it's a good start.

Date: 2006/04/05 06:26:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?)

Yes, that's perfectly grammatical, not to worry.

who is not.
And this is easily noticeable from their manners.

My two cents.

You're talking about an identical twin, I assume?

Date: 2006/04/05 07:12:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (improvius @ April 05 2006,12:04)
Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?

Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here.

EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

No, I think TD is referring to Big Gay Gene from South Park.

Date: 2006/04/05 07:19:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ April 05 2006,12:16)
I thought that was Big Gay Al.  Or was Gene the name of Stan's gay dog?

Yes, it is Big Gay Al. I was making a dumb joke. Yeesh, way to wreck it...   :p

Date: 2006/04/05 07:35:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,11:41)
[quote=Rilke's Granddaughter,April 05 2006,11:30][quote=Stephen Elliott,April 05 2006,10:37]Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

No, it's not your opinion, it's an objective, emperical fact: Larry IS an irritant.

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
Does Larry post at UD?  Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.

If Larry behaved at UD the way he does at PT, UD would tell him to shut up, too.

Larry I warned you about changing your name every two days and I don't see why you're qualified to give legal advice. You're outta here.-dt

Date: 2006/04/05 08:26:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Re: the duck story, the full 6-page article posted as a PDF is also definitely worth a read.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:09:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ April 05 2006,14:03)
On the "get Beckwith Tenure" thread they are asking:
1. If you’re involved with intelligent design (director of a center or a fellow, etc.) we ask that you do not make mention to that. Baylor is already bothered by the intelligent design movement from the time of Dr. William A. Dembski and might be afraid to associate themselves with Dr. Francis J. Beckwith if a mass amount of emails come in saying how dynamic Beckwith is in the intelligent design field.

They are embarassed about their own "science"?

I'm sure DaveTard has already started using "Beckwithed", but I probably missed it.

DT's just taking his cue from the Religious Right, as usual. This is how the fundies sneak their candidates into school boards and such.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:13:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 05 2006,14:09)
J. G. Cox wrote:
I should also emphasize that evolutionary theory gives many potential research directions for the question at hand.

Except for the most important one: would evolutionary theory predict a "gay gene"? Or any other gene for that matter? Why must Darwinism wait for verification of an entity's existence before lauching its research program? Shouldn't evolutionary psychology or the ever-so-mathematically-cogent field of population genetics provide a predictive model for what changes are possible? But no, after real scientists make the discoveries, evos rush in, chisels in hand, and announce a new field to "tackle". It's easy to give answers when nothing's at stake.......but you get what you pay for.

Well, I see G.O. Paley is back, but since his mood is no better than before, his 'vacation' must not have been very restful...

Date: 2006/04/05 10:20:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ April 05 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
Is there any ID supporter who is not a religious appologist?

I am an agnostic. Got that, you f*cking church burner? -dt

Well, DaveTard is an interesting case in this regard. As he points out here, he does claim to be an agnostic. So assuming that he's not actually lying, I think this indicates that people can have purely political motives for supporting ID. Sort of sociologically interesting in and of itself.

Here's 'sociologically interesting' for you -- I'm kicking your ass out.-dt

Date: 2006/04/06 06:17:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ April 06 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Looks like a big mudpuppy to me. :roll:

This is evolutionary biology at its finest though. Sort of like stamp collecting.

The practical benefit from this “great discovery” is exactly zero. Again like stamp collecting.

Comment by DaveScot — April 6, 2006 @ 1:44 am

I take it back. A practical benefit occurred to me.

As long as these ebola boys are playing with fossil skeletons they aren’t communicating their dreams of exterminating the human race to innocent young minds.

I guess every cloud DOES have a silver lining.

Do you sometimes get the impression that Dave actually secretly hates real scientists and real science?

Hmmm. I just might steal that 'Ebola Boy' idea as a new handle, tho.

Date: 2006/04/06 08:27:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thurdl01 @ April 06 2006,07:49)
I'm starting to think we need a serious division of labor here.  What with our plots to burn churches, kill most of the people on the planet, and destroy Christianity, there's a #### of a lot on our plates.  We should really start considering committees and such.  With the ultimate goal of making sure that the 10% of the remaining population has nowhere to worship...well...that's not something you want to mess up.

You're forgetting, someone needs to work on destroying the American family.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:09:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 06 2006,11:35)
It seems to me that when we look at homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, suicide and euthanasia, we see phenomenon that purposely defy evolution.  If each of these phenomenon were genetically-related then a "self-destruct" gene would seemed to have evolved at evolution's own design.

I agree, but I'd like to see if evolution actually makes any predictions before I hammer it with any putative inconsistencies. All of this could be avoided if evolution could provide a rigorous way to test its stories instead of leaning on other disciplines for guidance. This is why Dembski and Behe had to construct a new vocabulary before critiquing Darwin.

Well, I guess this disproves my observation that IDC types never talk to each other at science blogs...

PS: GOP, I think you can do better than Thordaddy. Believe me.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:14:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2006,14:07)
There's almost nothing dumber than saying we should only do the science we'll know will have a practical impact. That's so dumb it reminds me of something a fundy relative once said.

fundy: "if the environmentalists don't like nucular waste, the should just put it on rockets and blast it to the moon."
my friend mike: "One out of every 20 or so rockets blows up, though."
fundy: "We'll they can just put that one out of 20 off to the side, then."

Even more relevant (from "Broca's Brain"):

"Among Faraday's many celebrated discoveries, some of obvious and immediate practical beneift, were more arcane findings in electricity and magnetism, then little more than laboratory curiosities. In the traditional dialogue between heads of state and heads of laboratories, the Queen asked Faraday of what use such studies were, to which he is said to have replied, "Madam, of what use is a baby?"

Date: 2006/04/06 11:12:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 06 2006,15:48)
Dembski's site has just posted a link to part of the transcript for Pianka's speech to the TAS. I thought that this quote stood out:
Here’s the most optimistic projection: Is we don’t have a collapse.

Yeah, he definitely wants to kill 90% of humanity.

In Planet Dave, Pianka is a bioterrorist in precisely the same way as we burn chrches.

I'm surprised Dembski hasn't called the Alabama State Troopers to have us arrested.

Date: 2006/04/06 14:40:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,16:32)
As for the Designer, homosexuality seems to be the consequence of free-will.  This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.

TD must not know any gay people. I think he's regurgitating nonsense his pastor told him.

It's also nice that TD has figured out what causes homosexuality. If only he'd share the evidence with us. sigh...

Do you have any actual evidence for this homosexuality/domestic violence correlation, or is that just a product of your feverish imagination?

Also, homosexual WOMEN have a lower rate of STD's than any other group. Should children be taught that? If not, why not?

However, it is refreshing to see that you correlate 'early morality' with homosexuality, whatever that is.

Date: 2006/04/06 14:43:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Seven Popes @ April 06 2006,19:04)
Silly Thordaddy,
IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you?

How could they have free will if the designer made them gay?

Fourth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

You people are STILL expecting a coherent answer from TD? WTF?

Okay, here's TD's answer, since he won't say it. A gay gene would refute evolution. So would the absence of one. Got it?

Date: 2006/04/06 18:28:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (UnMark @ April 06 2006,23:22)
The best defense is a good offense. Change the subject and go after Mims makes perfect strategic sense from the standpoint of the Church Burning Ebola Boys (or girls in this case).

I'm starting to think that this blog has a huge influence on DaveTard. I wonder if we could create some kind of new meme here and see how long it takes to find its way into DT's rants?

Date: 2006/04/07 04:30:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2006,23:31)
If Davetard, DougMoron, and the rest watch us too much, and learn where they make most of their boneheaded, insanely great mistakes, there's a chance they'll be more cautious in the future, reducing their entertainment value.

There has been absolutely no sign of that so far. I wouldn't worry about it.

However, it is true that DT routinely corrects his more egregious scientific/logical errors based on what he reads here. That is, once the error in question is 'off the front page', as it were. "Oh that? I've always said we're at war with Eurasia! What are you talking about?"

Date: 2006/04/07 05:11:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 07 2006,09:57)
Quick question. I have seen this quote several times now.
I've always said we're at war with Eurasia

Tried to search it but got 155,000 hits. Read a few but got no explanation.

To what does the above quote refer?

Refined search a bit more. I gather it is from Orwell's "1984". I have read this book (a long time ago) and can't remember the quote, never mind the context.

It's a quote from Orwell's 1984. In that novel, the country Winston Smith lived in (Oceania) would periodically switch from being at war with one or the other of the two other countries in the world, Eurasia and Eastasia. Whenever the switch happened, the papers and TV's would all mention how they had always been at war with, say, Eastasia, and never at war with the other. Then a few months later they'd make the opposite claim. And, since old newspapers and history books were always being revised, the claims could never be refuted.

You can see the parallels.

Date: 2006/04/07 05:14:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Louis @ April 07 2006,09:58)
So please creato-fundie-IDiot-phuckups learn the difference between a joke (or in this case parody) and real life.

As there's no such distinction in their own minds, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Date: 2006/04/07 05:53:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 07 2006,10:23)
EDIT: Cheers for the tip-off Arden.
Edit:EDIT: Yep the parallels are quite clear. Now I know the context.

That's also the book that gave us the very handy term 'memory hole', in case you ever wondered about that one:

Date: 2006/04/07 09:04:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 07 2006,14:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2006,13:47)
Thanks, Drew. Do you go around pulling earthworms off hooks for a living?

Uh... how do I respond to that?

Actually, I didn't get the joke at all. Is it some kind of Aussie thing?

Date: 2006/04/07 09:31:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 07 2006,14:26)
Wesley baited a trap. He quoted a "debunked" suporter of ID suporting ID, but Drew pointed out the guy was a fool, and a recorded fool to-boot.

But I could be wrong. It has happened before.

OOOOOHHHHHH, I get it now. I totally messed up Wesley's sting operation. So does this mean I get thrown out of the Darwinist conspiracy?

Burn a church or two and we might forgive you.

Remember: might.

Date: 2006/04/07 13:28:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Nothing wrong?  If the behavior shows overrepresentation in terms of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early morality then how can you say there is "nothing wrong" with that behavior?

Again (third time! ), got any EVIDENCE for the assertion that gays disproportionately have problems with domestic violence or drug abuse? Cuz you see, TD, you just hating gays does not constitute 'evidence', doncha know...

Also, 3rd time again, these figures are not true of gay women. Gay women have lower STD and 'early morality' rates than any other group. Does that mean they're the most moral people in society of all? Shouldn't we be teaching women to emulate them? If not, why not?

Date: 2006/04/07 13:32:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
A new DaveTard bon mot I missed:

"Biologist Church Burning isn't good enough anymore. Should we change to Earth Scorchers?

Whaddaya think? 'Earth Scorchers' just doesn't have the same zing that 'Church Burners' has. And it's nowhere near as cool as 'Ebola Boys'.

Date: 2006/04/07 13:36:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:15)
So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution?

Hey Thordaddy!

What about gay penguins?:

Think it's genetic with them, or are they just using their free will to make wicked 'lifestyle choices'?

Date: 2006/04/07 18:38:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

now that's a church worth torching!

Sir, your thought processes are medieval. Let's "Nuke-Em Till they glow"!

Please, get with it. Ebola bombs are the wave of the future.

Date: 2006/04/08 06:38:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
My bet is the left wing of the science establishment got all lawyered up and threatened to dover the tiny Seguin Gazette for a million bucks. That’s what biology is all about these days, don’t you know, suing instead of science. But hey, suing and science both start with an ’s’ and have two syllables so it’s all good. -ds

Yeah, we all know REAL scientific programs do REAL research and don't just run on lawsuits. RIGHT, Dave? :p

Poor Dave. Seems like he's running on fumes this week. This too pleases me.

Date: 2006/04/08 07:35:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 08 2006,12:21)
I am beginning to suspect that the reason Dembski put DS in charge of UD is for the exact reasons we like him so much.

His antics are just so goddamn funny.

It's amazing how he can make almost one serious error in logic or position each and every day, deny it vigorously, and then simply move on.

it DOES stimulate the "morbid fascination" centers of one's brain.

Dave is in danger of burning mine out completely tho.

No, I think the business of Dave being so goddamn funny was a happy, unanticipated side effect.

I think if this thread was disbanded and we all quit talking about Dave he'd be really hurt and really miss the attention. So much of what he talks about these days seems to echo comments we make here. An egomaniac like Dave must love having all sorts of people talking about him.

Date: 2006/04/08 12:02:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ April 08 2006,14:49)
This is too beautiful to keep buried at UD:
Not that anyone has expressed the least bit of interest in this, but yes, I am Red Reader. I’ve come out from behind my pseudonym. But I did it for a very good reason.

Since the day Dr. Dembski turned moderation over to DaveScot and allowed several others to start posting here, it seems to me that the blog has become even more professional and more evidence based.

My eyes buggeth out ... DaveScot's made the blog more professional?  Oh well, the best is yet to come ...
(Please do not take this to mean it wasn’t so before: just that the small cadre of contributors here has sharpened and honed the defense of ID in positive and productive ways.)

I kept posting as Red Reader for a while, but that pseudonym seems out of place now because of the stepped-up emphasis on checkable sources.

P.S.S. Another reason for using my real name is I too hope to earn posting priviledges here oneday with posts reflecting historical perspectives on the ID debate.

And we, too, hope that Red Reader is given the keys to the blog!

So what's RedReader's real name?

For a man who posts what are arguably the stupidest comments at UD, it's rather endearing that he's standing up and proudly taking credit for his, uh, 'accomplishments'.

Date: 2006/04/08 12:07:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,15:18)
Dangit. I'm all conflicted about whether to point out that Red Reader is dumb even by Davetard's standards. In doing so, I risk influencing their decision in a way opposite my comedy interests.

I'm not putting Red Reader in charge of my blog any more than I'm putting your mother in charge. It's MY blog. Homo.-dt

Date: 2006/04/08 12:17:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I mean, look at all the responses from supposed scientists, and the total denial of the fact that American homosexuals are HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality.

'OVERREPRESENTATED', eh? Sounds pretty bad, whatever it means. The caps just make it more severe...

And last time you said they had high rates of 'early morality'. Which is it, 'early morality' or 'early mortality'?

So, for the 4th time, have any EVIDENCE for these claims, TD?

Cuz, you know, hating gays and putting your comments in boldface doesn't prove shlt, don't you know.

Well, I don't know, maybe that IS proof if you think that science and religion are the same thing.

Date: 2006/04/08 13:59:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,18:07)

You asking me to provide evidence for my assertions is like me asking you for evidence of evolution.

You want to say I'm in denial while you are in denial.

The difference is that I don't claim to be an "objective" scientist.

Let's ask a scientific question?

Why would evolution devise a "sexual orientation?"

Gotcha, TD. Beautiful nonanswer. Basically, you're making shlt up. Thanks for clarifying that.

I forgot, this is Planet Thordaddy, where if Thordaddy believes anything strongly enough that makes it true.

And if someone else shows him he's full of shlt, that proves that person is 'nonobjective'.

Date: 2006/04/08 14:05:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,18:27)
I have a question for McEevo’s, National Geographic sponsors, Nature, Science. Will they allow top scientist who are skeptics to review all the data, up close? Perform their own test and then report to the public their findings? This is what happens in all other areas of science. Why not Paleontology?

But wait, maybe not all areas of science. Dr. Behe is treated with scorn by neo-Darwinians. Without an opportunity of original work on IC by Dr. Behe in Science, now a paper appears in Science attempting to refute IC and thus ID. Yet they never allowed Dr. Behe the equivalent academic peer-reviewd treatment.

So, they put forth questionable evidence against ID while not allowing the original proponents same access? How cowardly is that? Honestly, is that not what cowards do? They denounce their opponents sharply without allowing them rebuttals? Thus running from confrontation of the evidence before them?

I am seriously doubting the objectivity of Popular Science magazines today, and even the peer-reviewed papers, their editors and scientist in this area of paleontology and the extended ongoing controversy of ID.

Comment by Michaels7 — April 7, 2006 @ 1:41 pm

Steve, are you trying to ruin my whole weekend? What kind of sick bastard are you???

Date: 2006/04/08 15:05:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,19:30)
Oh, don't read it if it's ruining your weekend. It doesn't ruin mine. Few things can make me laugh more consistently than those dingbats.

Actually, it's not really ruining it. I was just rather startled. It's like I was walking along the beach on a beautiful day and suddenly I got hit by this great big wave of dumbness. Now I have to go change my clothes and dry off.

Never mind. Carry on.

How about THIS for ruining your day? You're out of here, pal.-dt

Date: 2006/04/08 15:08:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ April 08 2006,17:39)
Red Reader's real name is Glenn.  He posts now under the handle "glennj".  He's also used his new handle on PT.

I don't think I've seen any of his posts there yet. Am I right in assuming he fares rather poorly there?

Date: 2006/04/08 15:32:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,17:43)
Actually he could put my mother in charge. She's a wacko who believes in YEC, fluoride conspiracies, NASA conspiracies, UN conspiracies, &c &c. She'd fit right in over at UD. She even has a degree in a non-science field, so she'd be perfect.

I've got your mother right here. How about I ask her?-dt

Date: 2006/04/08 15:44:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,20:34)


Aw, shlt, now I have to change again.

I think stupidity is America's only truly limitless natural resource.

Date: 2006/04/08 16:04:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 08 2006,20:52)


that's a new one on me.

is that supposed to mean evolutionary biologists are the 'fast food' of science?

perfect projection on the part of a creationist, if so.

Dunno, McEvo's just doesn't do it for me. Now 'Ebola Boys' -- THAT is catchy.

If these guys knew what was good for them, they'd leave the coining of new insults to Dave -- now HE knows funny.

Date: 2006/04/09 11:32:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Now, how did I know that when I saw the phrase 'human life' and 'Thordaddy' on this thread it inevitably was going to be about abortion? When wingnut loons like TD talk about 'human life' they're never referring to anyone who's been born, unless they're in a vegetative coma. Funny, that.

Date: 2006/04/10 16:57:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I'm sure DaveTard will announce this as a victory.

Date: 2006/04/10 17:10:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Savagemutt @ April 10 2006,21:06)
Re Dave's agnosticism:

IIRC (My favorite phrase), Dave  once said on a thread that if there was a god it was the Christian god, but he remains on the fence about his existence. I can't remember where or when this was, but it stuck in my head. As John Stewart would say, "Whaaaaa?"

I've known people like that -- people who basically weren't religious, but who were adamant about supporting the ideas of rightwing American Christianity simply because they viewed it as what wingnuts are supposed to do. These kind of people also get on your case for belonging to any kind of unusual religion not because it's sinful, but somehow you're a bad American for having a religion that isn't a nice, normal American one. I've had people imply this is somehow 'treasonous' to America, even tho they actually weren't religious themselves. It's very bizarre.

Date: 2006/04/11 08:53:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ April 11 2006,05:43)

DaveTard likes attention, it's true, but what he really craves (and never gets) is respect.

I've noticed that. My sense from reading the comments by the UD regulars is that they put up with DT because he's the head of the 'best' ID blog there is (a staggering thing to realize), but he just doesn't inspire any of the same slavish adoration that Dembski could summon up. They think he's doing Jesus's work and all that, so they endure his rantings, obey his rules, and suppress any misgivings they may have about his more antisocial behavior, but I don't get the feeling anyone there much likes or respects him. I think this is a result of (a) he has no scholarly credentials, even by the remarkably lax standards of ID advocates, (b) he's an obvious thug, and c) he professes to be an agnostic. His flunkies could forgive the first two, but the third one must bother a lot of his flunkies, setting aside whether it's even true.

Date: 2006/04/11 08:57:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I can't believe Cornell would do this. This pisses me off. Maybe we should organize a boycott?

Date: 2006/04/11 10:47:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ April 11 2006,15:24)
You never know. Might be worth Digging into the past of the professor. You know, find out how impartial he really is.

I wonder if he's a Christian? If so, that explains it. Surely Christians have no place teaching science classes. Teaching math at Bible colleges in the South, sure, but not science.

I'm going to write my liberal Congresswoman this very afternoon.

Date: 2006/04/11 10:51:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Jay Ray @ April 11 2006,15:28)
Carl Sagan must be rolling over in his grave of the imagination.

Come back, Carl!  We need you more than ever!

Indeed, ever since he's been gone, no one says 'billions and billions' anywhere near as well anymore.  :p

Date: 2006/04/11 13:17:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ April 11 2006,16<!--emo&:0)
How deliciously hypocritical:

1. Dembski quotes an article describing the fudging of data by scientists, and... fudges the data.

Is that an example of metafudging?

Date: 2006/04/11 14:06:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,19:00)

You keep avoiding the issue at hand.

You say you can make distinctions between a zygote and an adult person while simultaneously stating that conception doesn't represent the beginning of human life.  You are "ambiguous" on this latter point while retaining great clarity on the former issue of differentiating between "zygote and adult person."  

On the other hand, I can certainly differentiate between a zygote and an adult person just like I can differentiate Cierra now from Cierra at birth.  This is stating the obvious.  What I can't differentiate is between Cierra as zygote and Cierra NOW.  They are the same unique human entity.  This is undeniable.

What I CAN'T ascertain is WHY this effects someone's right to live given the ambiguous nature of when "human life begins" in the context of science.  

You are saying that because we (science) can't define when "human life" begins then it is justified to kill the human organism.  But science readily knows that a specific person WAS represented by a specific zygote.  Science recognizes that these are the SAME ENTITY.  

You were a zygote, but how are you different from that zygote in any fundamental way?

You need the zygote, the zygote doesn't need you.


You know, they call them 'fingers', but I've never seen them fing!

Date: 2006/04/11 14:11:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Another interesting question is, how much has UD's traffic increased since this particular thread began? In other words, how much of DT's increase in visitors does he owe directly to a site set up expressly to make fun of him?

An embarrassingly large percentage, I'd predict.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:24:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,19:19)

SEE? That proves my whole point!

I am the zygote, and the zygote is me. QED.

But the zygote isn't you. I don't know what the he11 you guys are.  :p

Date: 2006/04/11 15:47:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 11 2006,19:26)
Sorry people, I'm switching sides now.

I hear DaveTard has poker at his house on Wednesday nights.

Careful, tho, I heard he doesn't take it well when he loses.

Date: 2006/04/11 17:50:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I don't get it. What required reading list for a class on ID could be complete without Jack Chick's Big Daddy?

Date: 2006/04/11 17:57:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,21<!--emo&:0)
Davetard pokes who now?

Why, William Dembski, of course!

Date: 2006/04/11 18:07:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
A confession here -- there's one thing I've never understood about eugenics -- who is this poor bastard Eugene they keep talking about? And why does Thordaddy want to argue against him?

Is he the same person as Big Gay Gene? Is that what this is about?

Date: 2006/04/12 07:45:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ April 12 2006,11:56)
Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread.  Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.

They now appear to have excised him again.

So he actually made some posts under your name? He only threatened to post under my name.

Date: 2006/04/12 15:10:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Ergo, all you anti-ID folk tune in here because you can’t wait to hear what outrageous thing I’m going to say next and you tune in more frequently than the pro-ID folk.

Is this Dave's admission that most of his traffic comes from people who are only there to laugh at him?

Date: 2006/04/14 04:09:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
It becomes difficult to explain why retrovirus signatures would be copied by an intelligent designer. One seemingly msut presume the designer is using existing living templates for new species, as in (designer thinking to himself) “I think I’ll create a giraffe today and this antelope I made in the past seems like a good starting point” so he picks a couple germ cells from living antelopes, modifies the genomes, and grows a pair of giraffes, complete with the retrovirus baggage from the past.

So basically, God is all-powerful, but lazy.

Don't Christians have some sort of rule saying you're not supposed to try and second-guess what God's thinking like this?

Oh, forgot, we're not talking about God, we're talking about the designer. Never mind. Carry on.

Date: 2006/04/14 04:38:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 14 2006,09:20)
Charles Krauthammer, Nov 18, 2005:
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today."

It's amusing to realize that if Charles Krauthammer tried to post at UD, Dave would have no choice but to verbally abuse him, then ban him.  :p

Date: 2006/04/14 07:27:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 14 2006,11:41)
Quote (stevestory @ April 14 2006,09:27)
does it?


If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century.

Gravity did not work before Newton.

And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born.

But those aren't examples of no scientific evidence! The evidence was all over, humans just weren't in a position to see it yet.

Lack of comprehension isn't the same as lack of evidence.

Date: 2006/04/14 08:19:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 14 2006,12:42)
Speaking of evidence take a look at this gem I got from the IDnet in AU:

Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity.

Gosh, that proves IC is true, and that proves the existance of space aliens and time travelers!

Shoot, this now means that as long as it wasn't disproved in a peer-reviewed journal, everything I ever wanted to believe is now true!!

Well, he11, this changes everything...

Date: 2006/04/15 08:19:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[quote=Chris Hyland,April 15 2006,04:36]
We don't know that the Tiktaalik lived 383 million years ago. We don't know that it used its unusual fins to walk. We don't know that it ever left the water. We don't even know for sure that it is extinct today. And we sure don't know that it represents any link between one species and another.

We simply don't know what we don't know. And I sure wish those who called themselves scientists would just admit that.

Correction: HE doesn't know. Fascinating that he projects his own bottomless ignorance onto everyone else. "I sure wish all them liberal scientists would just 'admit' my personal bias!"

Just priceless.

True, but it fits in neatly with the 'make shlt up and that makes it true' mindset of modern wingnuts.

Date: 2006/04/15 08:28:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ April 15 2006,05:20)
ID's Goodwill Ambassador, DaveScot, spreads the cheer:
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Funny that the Good Christians on UD don't seem to mind this kind of talk. You know, given that they're so much more moral than us wicked secularists.

Date: 2006/04/15 08:31:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
So I guess this fizzled, eh?

Date: 2006/04/15 14:28:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2006,17:53)
Looks like it. You can always hope Thordaddy shows up and says something like "How can you say that ID has not been taught at Cornell in the past? Aren't you aware of a little thing called farming? Or do you wish to deny that transsexuals (bisexual females) don't return there movies to Blockbuster and therefore should be sent to leper colonies?!?!" and you guys'll be off to the races again.

Check out MacNeill's recent posts at PT on the subject of his class. Sounds like he's the classic "gee-whiz-ID-makes-a-lot-of-interesting-points-both-sides-seem-to-have-a-lot-of-good-
evidence-evolution-types-seem-like-they-have-awfully-closed-minds" type of doofus.

And of course, for the next 30 years ID geeks will be crowing about this as an example of ID "holding its own in academia".


Date: 2006/04/15 14:37:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Oh dear, I think I foresee an upcoming mathematical tour de force which 'proves' that our DNA contains a notarized hidden instruction manual. Unfortunately the contents of that manual will remain unknowable without  considerable outlay.
Salvador has suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks we'll find a hidden message from Glorious Old Designer encoded in the 'junk' DNA. It's howlingly funny but it's so pitiful it actually makes me feel a little bit for him. Poor dumb idiot.

I think we milked a lot of mirth out of this idea several months ago either here or at PT. Cuz how does Sal know the message will say something he likes? What could it say?

Earthlings! Soon we will be back to destroy your puny planet! - Xenu

Baal demands human sacrifices!

Hail Satan!

this space available

Lose Weight Now! Ask Me How!

Christians: you're getting everything wrong! Stop it right now! - Jesus

My God! It's full of stars!

The possibilities are endless!

Date: 2006/04/16 06:39:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
They need to stop throwing out the red herrings of possible supernatural connections to ID and get into the lab or go out into the field and do some research!

Ooh! Sounds like Crandaddy is angling for RedReader's crown!

Date: 2006/04/16 18:25:41, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (UnMark @ April 16 2006,21:43)
I seem to recall being the one to wonder, in the UD thread, where that 10% came from.  I see that theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, etc, are now being lumped into the ID camp.  I wonder what Buddhists think of that?

We don't want anything to do with DaveTard, believe me.

Besides, ID is a Christian Fundie show. They don't want anything to do with non-Christians, regardless of what they may say. Occasionally they claim people of other religions to boost their numbers and make themselves look a little less bigoted, but when they play coy about 'the Designer', they ain't talking about Allah or Brahma, believe me.

Date: 2006/04/16 18:38:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dante @ April 16 2006,19:55)
I don’t think that is so. Darwinism was invented precisely to do away with the Creator.

Doesn't this guy know that Darwin was going on to be a minister?

Darwin: the original church burner.

You dumbass, Darwin was a rabid atheist who is shown to have slaughtered many christians in his home of England. Try paying attention to the facts next time you try to post here. P.S. ID has nothing to with religion. -ds

That's actually the real reason Darwin took that voyage on the Beagle: he wanted to go all over the world, burning churches.

He also stopped by Africa to collect Ebola. He intended to go back to England and kill Christians with it, but he got too involved with teaching communism to school children and destroying the English family. I heard he was also friends with Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

Oh yes, and he was also a Muslim.

Date: 2006/04/17 11:36:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 17 2006,15:39)
I didn't realize that DS considered himself to be a theorist. I haven't seen any of DS's work on the theory myself.
Davetard has exactly as many peer-reviewed scientific papers explaining the theory of Intelligent Design as everybody at the Discovery Institute put together.


There is no theory, there are no predictions, there are no experiments. There is nothing but jargon.

That's not true! They also have a public relations firm and regular press releases!

And of course,

let us not forget...

they have DaveScot...

Date: 2006/04/18 06:12:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 18 2006,07:58)
Go read all that Hovind/Davetard stuff. It's great.

Yup, first post, an Australian named JP points out the very obvious reasons why Hovind's playground is going to be closed down, detailing the rather incompetent-at-best, slimy-at-worst financial practices of old Kent, and dismantling the ridiculous idea that Kent is some kind of victim of religious persecution.

What does DT do in response? He insults Australians.

Class act!

Two posts down, someone blames 'the humanists' for 'bringing down' Kent's park.

Date: 2006/04/18 07:13:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (improvius @ April 18 2006,11:59)
I don't understand what the hold-up is.  Why don't we just burn Dinoland down like we do all the other churches we don't like?

I tried that a couple days ago, but that fire-breathing T-Rex they have posted at the front gate scared the shlt out of me.

Date: 2006/04/18 08:02:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ April 18 2006,12:45)
And Virginia, and Maryland, and the rest of the South I believe.

Those states that provided most of the Americans who migrated to Dave's home state of Texas, in other words!

Yup. All those wonderful people who now vote for George Bush and who want ID taught in schools.

Date: 2006/04/18 20:33:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (haceaton @ April 18 2006,21:24)
Yup. All those wonderful people who now vote for George Bush and who want ID taught in schools

Allow me to point out that Maryland is not a Bush supporting state. We're heavily Democratic and both of our senators had the guts to vote against giving Bush Iraq war powers.

I wasn't including Maryland. I don't consider Maryland to be demographically or politically the same as places like Virginia, Georgia or Texas.

You sound like you have good senators. California has 2 Democratic senators as well, but they can't always be depended on to stand up to Bush in any meaningful way. But I too am proud to be in a very blue state.

Date: 2006/04/19 08:03:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hmmm... Could Larry's blog provide a new safe haven for disaffected refugees from UD?

For example, can we expect, say, Josh Bozeman to start hanging around there?

Date: 2006/04/19 11:56:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (keiths @ April 19 2006,04:25)
Is it just my impression, or is DaveScot exhibiting signs of hypertardation lately (even by DaveScot standards)? I'm beginning to think that he's really on our side, and that his goal is to undermine Dembski's blog by making it look idiotic.  

He does seem to be slipping lately, like the months of being laughed at and not being able to 'win' through sheer force of personality are taking their toll. His little online fantasy the other day of beating PZ Myers up is a good example of how he seems to be kind of losing it.

Maybe now he's finding out why Dembski lost interest in running the blog.  :p

Date: 2006/04/20 06:44:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ April 19 2006,08:36)
I'm composing a comment there right now (the real history of his banning).  I will be responding (over time) to his list of 19 excuses why Judge Jones's decision should be ignored.  It should be amusing.

WKV: Very nicely done history of the Ballad of Larry Fafarman at the PT Corral -- that's exactly how I remember it all happening. I don't think LareTard will ban you, but his response is amazingly boneheaded. I think the part I'm most impressed with is his assertions that he basically had 'the right' to post under other people's names because he'd been banned. Kind of analogous to saying one has the 'right' to shoot a policeman because he was trying to arrest you...

Date: 2006/04/20 06:48:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 20 2006,00:18)
Kevin (or can I call you W.?) - in the interests of irony, you should post under a different name each time.


Ooh, yeah, and post under the name of a different Confederate general everytime, like Larry did. Or maybe even better: post under the name of a UNION general every time. That should bug Larry, since he's a big Confederate apologist!

Date: 2006/04/20 13:54:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 20 2006,12<!--emo&:0)



I hope you folks aren't seriously encouraging someone to behave in a way you find reprehensible in somebody you disagree with.

Certainly not. That Would Be Wrong.

Date: 2006/04/20 13:59:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ April 20 2006,18:41)
See DS's graphic in the 1st comment. I love that guy.

Jeez, what circa-1973 book of clip art did he get that from?

Date: 2006/04/21 06:22:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 21 2006,11:12)
In the comment section of the current top post on Uncommonly Dense, “Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science”--I don't know how anyone could find ID religious--someone has commented thusly:


You know Dr. Dembski, your contribution with this essay is nothing short of amazing. I appreciate the several novel insights you revealed in the paper: natural evil in its full form is a reflection or “picture” of our human sin, G-d allowing it to run its course as a way of showing us the reality of sin, the fact that a garden was necessary (never considered that before), etc. I’m sure your work will ruffle some feathers, but I suspect you are onto something.

Your name will one day be remembered among the giants of our age. Now if you could just learn to focus on humility, you’ll have nothing hindering you from that destiny. Stay blessed.

Comment by Atom — April 21, 2006 @ 8:41 am

Is this the way DaveSpringer intended things to work out when he took over UD?  :p

Date: 2006/04/21 09:29:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Perhaps we should ask Larry about this? He's a Jewish holocaust 'revisionist', maybe he has some, uh, 'opinions' on the Armenian Holocaust?

Date: 2006/04/21 18:46:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Heddle is actually one of the more truthful ID types at PT. The thing that's remarkable about him tho, is his ability to rigidly compartmentalize different things in his mind without allowing them to slop over. He truly is a Biblical literalist, and he's trying very hard to reconcile this literalism and science without compromising the bible. We've had a couple arguments with him on PT where he's said, with a straight face, that everything in the Bible can be reconciled with modern scientific understanding with no problem. Then when people jumped on him and said "Oh yeah? What about Methuselah living to be 900 years old? What about the Flood and Noah's ark? You don't believe those things are scientifically possible, do you?", and his response is "yes, I believe those things literally happened, but those things don't contradict science because they're miracles". Then we would respond "Oh, well, all you're doing is taking anything that's scientifically impossible and sequestering it off as a 'miracle'. That's unfair, how can you do that and still say everything in the bible is scientific?" Then he would respond "I'm not taking anything off the table, all I'm doing is saying that Noah's Arc and Methuselah making 900 are just miracles, that's all. That doesn't make them unscientific". Then WE would respond "WAIT A MINUTE! You can't take all the impossible stuff, drape it with a big blanket that says MIRACLE, then claim everything is still scientific! That's cheating!" Then he'd respond with something like "But that's not what I'm doing. I'm just saying those things are miracles. The bible is still totally scientifically accurate". And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.

It's quite remarkable to watch, as anyone who's witnessed this can attest, this trick of simultaneously maintaining several different COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY ideas in your brain at one time, and working hard to never consciously notice that they're contradictory.

There's a battle going on in Heddle's brain between empericism and biblical literalism, and it looks like the literalism is winning.

Date: 2006/04/22 07:09:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (tacitus @ April 22 2006,11:46)
Arden, you've missed out one important aspect of David Heddle's strategy for reconciling the Bible with science.  As you said, he believes the Bible to be inerrant, but that's not to say he believe's Noah's flood was a global event or that Earth is only thousands of years old.

He believes that if you study the original Hebrew text long and hard enough with a mountain of Hebrew linguist text books at your side, you can see how "day" in Genesis could mean "age" and "global" could mean "regional" and so on.  In other words, the Old Testament doesn't always mean what the plain reading appears to mean, (i.e. you can make the Bible say just about anything if only you would work hard enough).

The irony of this brand of inerrancy is that supporters earn scorn from both flanks--from those who reject Biblical inerrancy are still unimpressed, and from those who, quite reasonably, think the Bible should mean what it plainly says, i.e. the young-earthers.

Actually, I don't recall Heddle getting into that kind of linguistic hair splitting when I used to bicker with him on PT. That silliness about "but what is the true definition of the Hebrew word for 'day'?" was Carol Clouser's specialty. Carol has turned this into quite a parlor trick, whereby ANYTHING in the Old Testament can be made to mean anything you need it to mean.

Maybe Heddle went in for that kind of thing at some point, but last winter when I actually participated in the David Heddle Show, he didn't bother with it. By then, he had arrived at that point of "but this is a miracle, and therefore it doesn't contradict science. So there."

The funny thing about when Heddle and Clouser would sort of team up against the Secularists was that it required that they temporarily forget that neither of them had much use for the other's scriptures -- Heddle viewed the Old Testament as definitely secondary to the New Testament, while Clouser doesn't care AT ALL about the New Testament.

Date: 2006/04/22 07:24:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I am enjoying posting on his blog at any rate.

Both JAD and DS have made an apearance now. The temperature is sure to rise.

I'm sure Davison and Springer got the idea to post at Larry's blog from this thread. They're so unoriginal. They depend on us for all their new ideas.  :p

Besides, you can bet DaveTard is not happy with the competition.  :angry:

Date: 2006/04/22 07:35:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,11<!--emo&:0)

Can you imagine what it would have been like, to have a group blog consisting of Davetard, DougMoron, SalCordova, and Larry Falafelman? God. That would have been like the Dream Team of tard.

When Cranks Bond. Not a common event.

You're forgetting to include Davison and Josh Bozeman. There you have the added ingredients of the embittered semisenile emeritus-professor crackpot and the high-school educated wingnut hoosier christian who still lives with his parents.

If DaveTard is reduced to pointing to people like Larry as a Hero of Intelligent Design, we might not have much to worry about at all.

Date: 2006/04/22 14:05:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,18:11)
Oh, yeah, I know Heddle's been consistent with that. I remember him saying it in 2005. I meant that considering 99% of what he says is bible-worshipping gibberish, when he strings together multiple sentences like...
The first strategy I disagree with is proclaiming ID as science. Philosophical discussions aside, I will accept ID as science when I read something like this:

  A scientist at (some respected research university) has been awarded a grant to do experiment X. ID predicts the result of the experiment will be Y. Non-ID predicts the result will be Z.

And don't tell me this cannot happen because the secular scientific community would never allow it. I was a practicing scientist before I was a believer, and we never had any secret meetings where we discussed our true agenda of destroying Christianity in the guise of science.

Predictions such as We will never discover an evolutionary pathway for (whatever) or We will never detect a parallel universe are interesting and important, but they are not examples of predictability arising from a full-fledged scientific theory.'s remarkable.

Ultimately Heddle's whole stance is quite schizophrenic. He may have 'once' been a scientist, but now he's a fundie apologist who's decided that when the Bible and science disagree, science must be wrong. What's odd about him is that he's actually sharp enough to realize that ID does not pass muster as science at any level (and, remarkably, honest enough to admit it) and yet it just has to be true anyway, because that's what the Bible demands. He's smart enough to realize that ID will never do anything better than evolutionary biology, but still dumb enough to think that Methuselah really did live to be 900 years. There's really nothing much you can tell somone like that.

Date: 2006/04/22 14:12:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Oh, Larry's so cute!:

A lot of people -- including David Stove -- like to discuss evolution from a philosophical standpoint, introducing such things as theological and social issues. I prefer to discuss evolution from a scientific standpoint. That is what attracted me to irreducible complexity -- it uses scientific arguments to challenge evolution.

Denyse O'Leary, good god, every loudmouth dimbulb who ever nattered on about ID is popping up there. I think this is going to bleed a lot of traffic off from UD. It'll be just like UD but without an abusive ex-Marine kicking every other person out for 'displeasing' him. Sadly, I suspect Larry totally lacks DT's fvcked up sense of humor.

Has Heddle shown up there yet? Someone let me know when Josh Bozeman finally surfaces.

Date: 2006/04/22 16:59:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 22 2006,20<!--emo&:0)
As much as I disagree with Larry, his blog is at least entertaining. I am looking forward to inevitable tiff between DS and JAD.

Oh my god. Neutral territory where DT and Davison can spit venom at each other without interference. I hadn't thought of that!!!

Do let me know if something like that happens. You'll probably be able to tell something's about to heat up if Davison calls DT 'Texas white trash' again.  :)

Date: 2006/04/22 17:04:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
The more I think about it, the happier I am Larry has started his blog. At PT, he was just an annoying, humorless freak who shlt all over the rules. In charge of his own blog, with all that retiree's spare time on his hands, he has the opportunity to truly blossom, to become fully realized.

This too pleases me.

Date: 2006/04/22 17:15:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Date: 2006/04/22 17:37:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,21:57)
I think the moment he comes through with that script, I will be hunting down the names Morgan Lynn Lambada and Carol Clouser. And I would say Charlie Wagner but he died or something. Haven't seen him lately.

Morgan is very disorienting. Her posts read like an autistic on acid -- I don't  understand quite what her 'issues' are.

Charlie Wagner still walks the earth. I 'spotted' him at Pharyngula a couple days ago.

The most annoying people at PT tend to be folks who only show up very occasionally, like Theonomo, Bozeman, etc. FL is a complacent Republican creationist, but he can't quite scale the heights of true trolldom. Pharyngula seems to be attracting WAY more of the crawled-out-from-under-a-rock crowd lately.

Date: 2006/04/23 09:13:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ April 23 2006,13:25)
Heh, looks like my anonymous post comparing Larry's blog to Comedy Central sorta sent JAD off the deep end.

No, JAD was already there. In fact, that's where he lives.  :p

Date: 2006/04/23 11:18:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2006,15:49)
Comment Deleted

   This post has been removed by the author.

   Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:03:06 PM

Here's the link to the thread on Larry's blog where this happened.

I wasn't paying close attention, so help me out here -- who and what was this deleted comment?

Date: 2006/04/23 11:21:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dante @ April 23 2006,16:15)
Ok, I've jumped on the bandwagon.

Anyone else care to join me? This is way more fun than posting on Uncommon Descent; no former dell employees screwing with what you write.

You magnificent bastard, I salute you!

Date: 2006/04/23 11:28:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2006,16:20)
Wow. That comment has already been yanked.

It's funny: DougMoron probably views us as the enemy and DaveTard as his friend, and yet WE preserve his messages here, and Dave deletes them! It's a wacky world.

Date: 2006/04/24 09:13:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Well, check it out now, apparently the Davison 'apology' is fake. It never really sounded like Davison to me. But his 'shotgun' post appears to be authentic.

Gotta admit, when Larry said he wasn't gonna censor, he was as good as his word...

Date: 2006/04/25 04:36:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2006,03:21)
[quote=BWE,April 24 2006,23:29]I posted directions on my blog for how to force only registered users. Does anyone think it's anyone other than Dumbsh!t Dave that's putting up the nutso stuff?

It is actually funny to read because it's so wacky. Poor Dave, I wonder how this has affected his bloggg.

What's cool is that you can tease the IDiot and he can't stop you but his readership gets to comment too. Busts him down to corporal, y'know?

DS is my No1 suspect. So many of his stock-in-trade insults slip into the posts.

The nutso stuff seems to have slowed down a lot, but I'm not convinced there's only one person posting it all. It looks to me like a couple different people.

If Larry's blog reduces the number of visitors to UD, DT has a ready-made solution: just slightly decrease the number of people he bans/deletes. Voila! No change in visitorship!

Date: 2006/04/25 04:54:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (improvius @ April 25 2006,09:48)
So is Brangelina an irreducibly complex system?

Jennifer Anniston has never struck me as seeming real complex.

Date: 2006/04/25 05:54:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
These are all very important questions, but there's one even more vital issue we must get out of the way first: is it too late for you to fix that typo on 'Lesbiand'? It's gonna bug the shlt outta me til it's fixed...

Date: 2006/04/25 06:53:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (MidnightVoice @ April 25 2006,11:37)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,April 25 2006,10:54]These are all very important questions, but there's one even more vital issue we must get out of the way first: is it too late for you to fix that typo on 'Lesbiand'? It's gonna bug the shlt outta me til it's fixed...

I do not have the authority to fix the typo as far as I can see.  I think you need to ask a friendly admin  :)

I was afraid you were going to say that.  :(

Anyway, I can't tell you how many virulently homophobic men I've known who were turned on by lesbiands. Probably all of them, actually. The venom all seems to be saved for male gays, except perhaps for some of the hyperfundie types. When you point out that their generalizations about gays fail to apply to gay women, they just change the subject.

I suspect that most homophobia derives from the phobic's own severely repressed fears as well as some kind of baboon-level competitiveness with other males. That is, if I can convince myself that gay men are horrible and convince others that you're gay, then I have a way of establishing some kind of cheap dominance over you. You get to maybe work your way up one more notch toward coveted beta male status.

That said, I have known a few gay women who seemed to believe that gay men and gay women are different species of humans, no more similar to each other than either is to straights. Like a fourth gender. There's a huge variety of thought on this that I couldn't begin to summarize.

Date: 2006/04/25 07:30:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ April 25 2006,12:16)
I suspect that most homophobia derives from the phobic's own severely repressed fears as well as some kind of baboon-level competitiveness with other males. That is, if I can convince myself that gay men are horrible and convince others that you're gay, then I have a way of establishing some kind of cheap dominance over you. You get to maybe work your way up one more notch toward coveted beta male status.

This seems quite true, but paradoxical to logic.  If anything, straight men should be completely accepting of gay men.  Gay men are voluntarily taking themselves out of the competition for women.  I'm all for that.  Not that I have trouble attracting females, but every little bit helps. Lesbiand on the otherhand, increase my competition.  Sure, I find them attractive, too.  But, logic says I shouldn't.

What I've always been amused by is the paradox of misogyny so often going hand in hand with homophobia. You'd think they'd be mutually exclusive, but nope. "You kissed a GIRL? That is so GAY!"

I think the reason so many straight men are attracted by lesbiands is because they represent women having sex without other men around -- that way they don't have to 'compete' with males, plus they don't run the risk of seeing other men naked, which is something gay men do.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense...

Date: 2006/04/25 07:40:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[Speaking of people who don't make sense, let's just hope we can keep Thordaddy out of this thread.]

Date: 2006/04/25 07:53:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Darwinism is a pretty darn formidable foe, given how many dozens of waterloos we've survived.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:29:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
This should answer all your questions:

Date: 2006/04/25 09:33:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ April 25 2006,14<!--emo&)
[quote=stevestory,April 25 2006,13:26]You know, evolutionary biologists are all nervous wrecks, waiting for the impending Atomic Waterloos. To preserve their nerves, they try to distract themselves by publishing several thousand papers per year.

And by burning churches and releasing ebola on unsuspecting, innocent people.  Don't forget about that.

For my part, I've been putting in a lot of hours this year working to destroy the American Family.

Date: 2006/04/25 10:46:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ April 25 2006,15:04)
I think most normal males have both a natural attraction to females and intimacy with females while simultaneously having an aversion to anything relating to male intimacy.

So obviously, 2 lesbiands wouldn't not present the same scenario as 2 homosexuads.


Wait, I'm confused -- how on earth does your second statement there follow from your first statement?

Date: 2006/04/25 10:57:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: D*mn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: Well what about you now? what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, I would sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.

Date: 2006/04/25 11:21:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2006,16:15)
After reading (and posting) a few comments on this blog, I have to admit that one man there impresses me : John A Davison.
I understand your addiction Alan. ;)

The man published in Science, and now he claims that ID is a law that should be followed without question, that evolution is finished (??), exposing this as a fact because HE has some peer reviewed papers, but that he won't read scientific literature because it's a bunch of lies (he was a scientist himself! ) spitting insults in every post like a ten year old kid (how old is he, 70?)... This is just impressive.  :0

Dembski and others (Davescot included) are just evangelists, completely lost in the scientific theories they don't try to understand... But the Davison is unique.
Read again his death threat. He's deadly serious, while other posters are more or less joking or parodying.

I love him so.  :D

He's 77 years old.

I know, I know.

Let this be a lesson: plan your life during retirement better than that. Don't let this happen to you. Don't waste your 'golden years' being a bitter old crank who insults everyone and who absolutely no one takes seriously.

Date: 2006/04/25 15:29:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 25 2006,19:41)
does the kid have ebola, or not?
With that kind of upbringing are you kidding?. Did i mention his parents were both evolutionists.

Help me out here, did believing evolution make them gay, or did being gay make them believe in evolution?

Date: 2006/04/25 16:16:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ April 25 2006,19:40)
Quote (MidnightVoice @ April 25 2006,10:50)
Or are the objectors secretly turned on by gay women??  Or are they men repressing their own homosexual instincts???

I saw this t-shirt once that said, "I'm only in favor of gay marriage if the chicks are hot."

I wonder what Bill would make of that.

Probable more evidence evidence, if any were needed, of the moral corruption of multiculturalism.

Who's 'Bill'?

Date: 2006/04/25 17:24:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ April 25 2006,22<!--emo&:0)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,April 25 2006,21:16]Who's 'Bill'?

The Reverend William Paley, obviously. Or, his immortal soul, at any rate, damned to wander the earth for all time, for god knows what reason, but I have a few suspicions...

Ah, so that's who that weird guy was who kept bugging me last Christmas eve, showing me all this icky stuff from my past and getting on my case about having being 'selfish' all my life!

I thought maybe you meant the Alcoholics Anonymous 'Bill'.

Date: 2006/04/27 10:48:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
For Davetard, ID is not about science or even religion. It's about politics and tribal allegiances, nothing more, nothing less. Dave supports ID because it's conservatively correct. To DT's little black-and-white mind, Darwin = science = liberal = Democrat = homo = atheist = AntiAmerican. They're all the same to him. If you're one, you're all of them, and no matter what you do, he hates you. And, all people who are not that thing are ID = conservative = Republican = straight = Christian = Patriot. If you're one of those things, you're assumed to be all of them, or you pretend to be at least, and no matter what you do, he will love you and defend you. And you're either on one of these teams or the other. There are no other teams, and no one is in the middle. So to Dave, himself, Dembski, George Bush, David Limbaugh and Ann Coulter well and truly are the same thing, and Michael Moore, Richard Dawkins, John Kerry, Barney Frank, the French and Osama Bin Laden are all the other thing.

This is what DT does instead of thinking. Keep this in mind and nothing DT says in the future will surprise you.

Date: 2006/04/27 11:31:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ April 27 2006,12:27)
Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!

Yeah, we're all still waiting for that evidence.

Yup. AFDave will convince us all that Genesis is literally true, evolution never happened and that the Earth is 6,000 years old, when no one else could before. Yup.

If this is really meant seriously, I have just one question. Have you ever read an actual book* on the topic of evolution?

*(pop-up books don't count)

Does Jack Chick's Big Daddy count?

Date: 2006/04/27 11:45:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

Wow. Just wow. Some people can convince themselves of anything they need to, can't they?

"We have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis"... Um, no. It's not 'well-established'. It's not proven in any scholarly sense. Period.

Many Asian countries have written histories, both religious and secular, that are as old as Genesis, and yet bear absolutely no relation to anything in the Old Testament. Why do you assume they are wrong and the Old Testament is right?

Date: 2006/04/27 11:59:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"I, like, know for a fact that atheists lynch christians and homosexuals attack straights and blacks attack whites, like, all the time. In fact, atheists, liberals, gays and blacks do these violent attacks far more than any other groups. They're just not reported because of all the atheists, liberals, negros, and homos working in the media. So the fact that I have no evidence at all to back up this assertion, and can point to no more than a few isolated cases certainly doesn't matter! My conclusion is that the media should immediately quit reporting cases that make me politically uncomfortable."

Please. Just go home.

Date: 2006/04/27 13:17:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,17:32)
No ... probably won't convince you, Arden, but there are others ... remember a guy named C.S. Lewis?  Probably more skeptical than you and he ended up as a Christian apologist ... ditto for Josh McDowell, Lee Stroebel and a host of others ...

Hmmm ... Arden Chatfield, the next great Christian apologist ... I like it!

No offense, AFDave, and I honestly have nothing against you for being a Christian, but the basic fact is, you're trying to convince a bunch of well educated and well informed people with no evidence. You're presenting your beliefs as something that can be emperically proven, and they simply can't. If they could, others would have done so LONG ago. People don't believe in the Book of Genesis because it's scientifically proven -- they believe in it because they choose to.

Date: 2006/04/27 14:19:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,19:10)
No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

"God said so, it's in the Bible" is not 'evidence', Dave.

Date: 2006/04/27 15:00:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 27 2006,18:49)
Arden Chatfield and Stevestory:

I don't mind if you post here, even if it's just to troll/insult me. But I do wonder why you bother. I mean, stevestory has made it clear that he doesn't want me "trashing" up his threads, and ordered me to GTFO of a couple of them (and yes, I obeyed). Yet here he is, returning the compliment. Why? Nobody's being forced to read this thread; in fact, it was created to make it easier to avoid unpleasant truths. So why do you care? Could it be that both of you are.....troubled by these facts, and wish to suppress them? I wonder if the moderator's ears are still ringing from listening to your sniveling. "For the luvva Gawd, won't you please shut this guy up?!!!!"  ;)  :D  :D  :D

The rules of staying 'on topic' are rather lax here, far more so than those at PT. This is a place where people come, make big statements, and get argued with. That's what ATBC was DESIGNED for. Haven't you been paying attention? You'd rather we all "avoid unpleasant truths"?

As for the moderator wanting us to shut up and not trash this thread, why not ask him?

PS: I'm not "troubled by these facts", since they're not facts. Easy call there.

Date: 2006/04/27 16:44:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Ved @ April 27 2006,14:22)
Cain and Abel married chimps, of course. That explains why we share 98 percent of our DNA with them.

This was a beautiful observation, BTW. I didn't want it to go unappreciated.  :)

And since we share, what, 96% of our DNA with gorillas, maybe C&A's grandkids married some of them. I'm sure we can work out the small details.

Date: 2006/04/27 16:47:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 27 2006,21:37)
if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

But that doesn't mean we need to hear about it.

Date: 2006/04/28 04:17:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 28 2006,06:26)
Jeannot, Stephen, BWE

That's how it starts. You think you are the one in control; you think you are the one exercising free will. but it's all been predetermined. I look forward to meeting you in rehab soon!

The first step is admitting you have a problem.  :p

Date: 2006/04/28 06:24:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,11:07)
I think an honest (and bold) prediction of Neo-Darwinism should be that that the current understanding of the Cambrian Explosion is flat out wrong. Now, if in 5 or 10 years we find that the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t an explosion and we discover that all these novel body types that appeared “geologically overnight” in the CE actually formed gradually over a billion years, then you have a blockbuster prediction.



*wipes tears*

...Man, no money can buy this kind of entertainment.

Incidentally, something I've wondered for a while, what the fvck IS 'Neo-Darwinism? I've noticed that actual scientists never use the word, only angry crackpots and creationists. Does it actually HAVE a meaning, or is it that the IDC folks think randomly prefixing 'Neo-' to words makes them sound all educated-like?

Date: 2006/04/28 06:47:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Thanks! A very clear explanation.

Tho I think there are other dimensions to how some people use it -- for instance, Davison seems to use it as an abbreviation for 'the theory of evolution as believed in by people I hate'.

Date: 2006/04/28 10:56:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Am I the only one starting to wonder if some of these Carol Clouser postings are actually just some smartass parodying her?

Date: 2006/04/28 11:07:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ April 28 2006,16:02)
DaveTard says:
As long as the law views ID as religion the believing that ID is science is protected as religious belief.

This has got to be one of the stupidist ideas I've ever heard.  Springer has really lost it this time.  "ID's not religion, but it should be protected as if it were!"

My BELIEF that you're outta here is constitutionally protected too! -dt

Wait -- I thought the whole reason these geeks invented ID was because the courts said you couldn't teach Creationism in schools, because Creationism is religion.

Our DaveTard is getting desperate.

Oh, well, I guess they figure that the whole "ID is science, not religion" thing bombed, so now they're figuring maybe they can go back to "SURE I.D. IS RELIGION, BUT SO WHAT? WANNA MAKE SOMETHING OF IT?"

Date: 2006/04/28 11:15:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ April 28 2006,16:06)
mmm, it seems some posts disappear from Larry's blog.

Someone named Ben wrote a very insightful comment on JAD, but now his post is empty.

Well, if Ben is a registered user, it's conceivable he edited it himself.

Otherwise, it looks like Larry took only 2 weeks to break his "I-Will-Never-Censor-Anyone" vows.

Did anyone copy it?

Date: 2006/04/28 14:31:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ April 28 2006,16:45)
Is that hitch hiker's guide or Monty python?

It ain't Monty Python, I can tell you that.

Date: 2006/04/28 15:34:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
So, has anyone here come to believe in a 6,000 year old earth and accepted Jesus as their personal savior thanks to Afdave's devastating arguments?

Date: 2006/04/30 06:18:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ April 30 2006,10:58)
The band Rush.

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh.

The band Rush were big Ayn Rand freaks, so maybe you're not totally off the mark here.  :p

Date: 2006/04/30 06:25:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

By the way, there will be a Great Doom one day. That much is certain, then all the people who predicted the end of the world as we know it will finally be right.

Comment by mynym — April 30, 2006 @ 9:17 am

See!! See!! When the Rapture comes and I go to heaven and you liberals get left down here, then you'll be sorry you made fun of me!!!!

These people just aren't happy unless they're convinced they're persecuted and they think the world is coming to an end.

Mynym pops up on PT every now and then. He's an belligerent, fanatical cretin there, as well.

PS: Intelligent Design still has nothing to do with religion, got it?

Date: 2006/04/30 06:37:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ April 30 2006,11:13)
And there is a trend of sadism inherent in people who call themselves "conservative" I've noticed. (not intended for all "true conservatives" out there)

Here's a small and maybe subtle example.

[Nevermind how entertaining it sounds to shock a dinosaur]

Keep an eye out for this kind of stuff. "Conservatives" (the ones that call themselves that nowadays in the US) love the idea of physical punishment. They are AOK with all the torture stuff. They make novelty mousepads celebrating the death of Rachel Corrie who got run over by an Israeli bulldozer. Stuff like that abounds. (I think the "Got syrup?" thing means she was made into a pancake.)

Dead on. I've noticed this sort of facile sadism among certain conservatives, as well, esp. with Rachel Corrie. I had a wingnut ex-friend who was EXACTLY that way. They seem to hate her so much, they get quite giddy with excitement when talking about her getting killed, in the most gruesome possible way. It's the same thing as fundies getting all excited about 'nonbelievers' suffering horribly during the rapture.

(And of course, let's not forget DaveScots very telling little fantasy of beating PZ's face in.)

And of course these are the same people who get all sanctimonious about liberals being 'immoral' and 'haters'.

Date: 2006/04/30 13:51:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ April 30 2006,18:25)
What is it about conservatives? As soon as some marginalized group gets some new right or privilege, conservatives are all afraid they're going to lose their rights.

Maybe conservatives think that there's only a finite amount of civil rights to go around, and if others get them, they'll lose theirs.  :p

Date: 2006/04/30 15:54:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ April 30 2006,20:46)
It gets better yet, he believes that the discovery is evidence that the dinosaur didn't die all that long ago ...and that this is making scientists COWER.

Of course it is! Well, in between church burnings, that is.

Date: 2006/04/30 15:57:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
A rigorous scientist follows where the evidence leads…
I get younger earther all the time.

Comment by mmadigan — April 30, 2006 @ 5:20 pm

I wonder where this person will stop? 5,000 years? 2,000 years? A hundred?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:14:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,08:02)
The Darwinian willingness to prevent the geological column from being rejected (or even doubted) goes against the evidence of human interaction with dinosaurs (formerly known as “dragons”).
No comment.

Then I will.

There is a certain type of nut YEC'er who wants everyone to call dinosaurs 'dragons' because they want the fossil evidence squared with the bible, and they assume dinosaurs and biblical 'dragons' are one and the same thing. I recently saw this on Wikipedia, where some fundie started yelling at them to rename the 'dinosaur' entry 'dragon'. When some people started laughing at him in the discussion, he got very hostile.

It makes my hair turn gray to realize how STOOPID millions of Americans are.

Date: 2006/05/01 05:13:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wonderpants @ May 01 2006,09:48)
This might sound off topic, but given that the issue revolves around a scientific discovery that people interpretate diferently, I think that a carefull analysis of the evidence presented by both sides might be helpful. Let people see the claims from both sides, and let them decide if the evidence confirms one theory or the other.

ID evidence in it's entirety (as against 150 years of evolution research):

1. We think it looks designed. Therefore it is.

2. Er.....that's it....

(Apologies to Private Eye)

Two more steps:

3. If you disagree with ID, you're an atheist

4. But ID has nothing to do with religion

There. Am I 'interpretating' this correctly?

Date: 2006/05/01 09:18:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (tacitus @ May 01 2006,13:57)
I recently saw this on Wikipedia, where some fundie started yelling at them to rename the 'dinosaur' entry 'dragon'. When some people started laughing at him in the discussion, he got very hostile.

It makes my hair turn gray to realize how STOOPID millions of Americans are.

I looked up the Wikipedia discussion and found the argument about dragons was proposed by a contributor named "Truthteller".  The funny thing is, if you click to his profile page he signs off his statement of faith with:
Sincerely in Christ, Randy Berg

P.S. I lack basic scientific knowledge to form valid ideas.


LOL: did he really type that himself, or did someone else sabotage his page?  Either way, it's very funny.

Yeah, that's the guy! Dragon Man himself.

My vote is sabotage, but it is pretty funny.

Think we can track that guy down and get him to start posting at Larry's blog? Things have been a little dead there lately.

Date: 2006/05/01 09:21:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,11:44)
Davescot on the amazing dinosaur bone marrow discovery:


I dunno. I’ve got a decent biological microscope in my lab at home that resolves blood cells quite well and none of the photomicrographs in the article look anything like them. The colors are all far too vibrant too. As far as flexible tissues left over after acid treatment - hasn’t everyone done the rubber egg experiment in school where you soak a chicken egg in vinegar (a mild *acid*) and the shell becomes flexible? My bet is that nothing comes of this. They won’t find any DNA and they won’t ever confirm it’s really soft tissue or intact cells they have.

Comment by DaveScot — April 30, 2006 @ 10:56 pm


DaveTard has a 'lab' at home?

Date: 2006/05/01 09:24:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,14:21)
Out of curiosity, do you guys know of any oil companies that drill for oil using a YEC model? Or do they all use Old earth models?
I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’m quite baffled at how anyone can be a YEC in this day and age.

Comment by Fross — May 1, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Someone obviously hasn't read the bible.

I wonder why then apparently it's not ok for molecular biologists to design drugs using the evolution model.

Being a petroleum geologist apparently makes a lot of people quit being Young Earthers. See here:

Date: 2006/05/01 09:29:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
From everything I've read the book is supposed to be about 98% bullshit, a fact the author hasn't been totally honest about.

Don't drop $8 on it -- there are billions of used copies around. You could probably get it for half that.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:04:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,15:02)

Don't drop $8 on it -- there are billions of used copies around. You could probably get it for half that.
Yeah, I mean, I can get it on ebay for $2 and add $5 S&H. :-)

It turns out there are no used book stores very close by, just new ones.

Go with OA's yard sale idea -- I predict that you'll need to stop at no more than two of them to get a copy for a quarter.

Plus that way, you don't give the author royalties.  :p

Date: 2006/05/01 10:18:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
That reminds me of this essay,where a guy gets pissed off that radiometric-dating-bashing christians are making christians like himself look like idiots, and he sets out to write a primer for why radiometric dating is not wrong.

Me, I prefer christians to be Paul Nelsons and Salvador Cordovas, crazy idiots with indefensible beliefs. Makes us atheists look better.

"You know me, Marge, I like my beer cold and my homosexuals flaming!!!!!" - Homer Simpson

Date: 2006/05/01 12:50:15, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,17:14)
I'm a sucker for conspiracy fiction.

Then may I wholeheartedly recommend Libra by Don DeLillo?

Date: 2006/05/01 13:03:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,17:58)
Certainly. I'm adding it to the list. I love anything where there are dark and complicated secrets about society/government/religion.

Have you read any James Ellroy? 'Dark and complicated secrets about society/government/religion' are his his stock in trade. But not all of his books are equally good, and lately he's been slipping. I can still recommend LA Confidential and American Tabloid, in that order.

But Libra is still better. And it was a big influence on Ellroy's recent books.

Date: 2006/05/01 13:21:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,18:18)
LA Confidential the movie was pretty good.

Agreed, but the book is even better. To keep the movie manageable, they had to cut out ~80% of the book. Otherwise the movie would have been 7 hours long.

Date: 2006/05/01 13:39:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I thought Larry wasn't getting the attention he deserved. So I went hunting for something good, and found the following example of Larry's penetrating intellect.

(From one of Chris Hyland's recent interactions with Lare-Dog:)


Larry:"And I have heard that some discoveries in genetics do not support evolution theory."

Chris: Do you have any citations for this?

Larry: Not at the moment -- it was just hearsay. But I know that scientists have tended to gloss over data that contradicts evolution theory, so I found it easy to believe the claim that some discoveries in genetics do not support evolution theory. I would not be surprised to find out that this is true.

As usual, IDC folks get the kind of heroes they deserve...

Date: 2006/05/01 16:15:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Nope. Evolution stopped happening 50 million years ago. Davison said so at Larry's blog just the other day, and he's got, like, a college degree and everything.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:48:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 02 2006,11:33)
Your child would have no grasp of language and would have no tools with which to abstract any of these concepts.  Without the word "why," you can't ask why, much less speculate about possible answers.

I know that misses your point, but that's what your scenario made me think of.

That was my first reaction, too. Minus any language, she wouldn't have been able to have all those deep thoughts.

Besides, many of the ideas you're describing are all cultural constructs anyway. Subtract out the culture and I doubt we'd be able to predict much of what could go through this gal's mind.

Date: 2006/05/02 10:53:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (steve_h @ May 02 2006,15:49) and
I’d want to see other researchers get similar samples from an unearthed location at the same site taking extraordinary precautions to ensure that it wasn’t contaminated during or after removal then isolate at least some fragmentary DNA from the samples and have multiple labs replicate the results. From what I read there was nowhere near good enough handling of the samples to insure no contamination because no one expected any need for sterile handling.
The "knee-jerk remarks" in bfast's comment (#4) on the UD link match SirLinkalot's comment in the second link. Also the above quote  appears as a '-ds' addition to the bevet's comment (#8) and is also in bfasts/SirLinkalot's comment  in the second link. I'm confused. How do you tell who is a sock puppet or who is copying whom?

As usual, I'm keeping all you losers guessing. You guys never can tell what I'll do next. That's why *you* losers are posting at ATBC and *I* have my own blog and used to work at Dell. Homos.-ds

Date: 2006/05/02 11:01:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ May 02 2006,15:56)
“Not to digress too far, but I assume everyone here is familiar with Thomas Gold’s theory that fossil fuel does not come from fossils at all:”

Fossil fuel did NOT come from fossils! It was intelligently designed to appear at a certain location. Tsk tsk….


Comment by shalini — May 1, 2006 @ 8:26 pm

This isnt as crazy as it sounds....
It may not be correct...but its not founded on irrational religious junk....

The argument is that oil can be produced by subjecting certain materials to heat and pressure.  The argument is that oil is mostly abiotic....

This has been researched and tested...and proven....
The question...and this is where most of the scientific community how much of our oil is abiotic and how much is biotic.  Most argue that only a small amount of the oil under the earth is inorganic....while a few argue that the vast majority is inorganic.

The man who originally proposed this theory, Thoman Gold, is no idiot...and it actually makes for an interesting read...

Interesting. Tho I assume the reason the UD crowd likes his theory is because (a) it jibes better with a Young Earth, and (b) it makes Bush's oil 'policies' seem perfectly reasonable.

So although this theory may not have begun life that way, to many it's now classic fundie wishful thinking.

Date: 2006/05/02 15:42:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 02 2006,17:14)
sauteed, with a little butter and garlic?

Supposed to be a lot of iron in dinosaur, oops, I mean dragon marrow...

Date: 2006/05/02 17:19:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (TCE @ May 02 2006,21:13)
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 02 2006,14:35)
Sign languages are fully grammatical 'natural languages.' There is no difference in principle between them and spoken languages for the purpose of first-language acquisition.

That just isn't true; I'm deaf myself :-)

I certainly don't "think" in sign which I learnt before I could lip read. I don't "think" in English either ;-)

If you don't mind my asking, what language (sign or otherwise) did you learn first, and how old were you?

Date: 2006/05/03 10:22:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ May 03 2006,14:29)
Nonsense. It was turtles all the way down.

Oh, you heathen, you. Everyone knows it's potatoes all the way down.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:17:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Faid,May 03 2006,19<!--emo&:0]
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,13:41)
IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened.

Barry has not been seen since more or less the time when he effectively killed Dr. Dembski's post about the new Dover board and ACLU being in cahoots:

Interesting, I don't see one of DT's classic And so's your mom. You're outta here dismissals. Is Dave trying to be more, uh, 'subtle' these days? Just silently zapping people who look too intelligent for UD?

Date: 2006/05/03 15:21:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Is there any way we can set up a thread where GoP, Thordaddy, and AFDave just slug it out? Just the three of them? Whoever's still left standing in a month will be free to post at the other AtBC threads.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:33:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Geocentrism (Paley vs. Cogzie, Eric, and Wallyworld)

I'm confused -- what about geocentrism? If we pick that, will you argue for it, or against it?

If you intend to argue for geocentrism, then that's my vote.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:45:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,20:29)
there's an hilarious comment at the link you posted, Arden:


I am pretty sure that the case utterly hinged on the constitutional issue of the establishment clause. Judge Jones’s decision clearly states that ID=religion. In fact, that is what the whole case argued. I read the whole grueling thing. They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID and determined ID to be religious.

When activist judges create the legal reality to support the meme (ID=religion), then researchers in the ID sciences have more and more trouble getting grants, christians are made laughingstocks, and the foundations of our society tremble.

When America no longer calls itself a Christian Nation, we have lost and our children will suffer.

Comment by Doug — April 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am

I love it when they simultaneously complain that ID was labelled religion, and that attacking ID is attacking christianity. These guys are truly the Keystone Kops.

They've been doing that constantly lately. "I can't believe people say ID is religion. It isn't. It's science. And anyone who doesn't like ID is an atheist who is trying to destroy Christianity." And they honestly seem to be totally unaware of how ridiculous this sounds. It seems inescapable that fundamentalism combined with junk science plain and simple makes people stupid.

But hey, this is why we won Dover, so I shouldn't complain.

Date: 2006/05/04 04:39:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hush, now, I want to hear GoP tell us how the sun goes around the Earth.  :angry:

Date: 2006/05/04 04:48:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is.

But that's standard Creationist/ID 'argumentation': find one scientific datum that's unexpected or unexplained, noisily crow about 'scientists can't explain this!', ignore everything scientists CAN explain, and claim that since there's this one unexpected factoid, the entire theory of evolution must therefore be thrown overboard. The inevitable next step is the magical leap that all this therefore proves ID or Biblical Creation.

A quintessential example is the UD clowns obsessing over the apparent red blood cells being found in the T-Rex bones: instead of assuming that this means there's things we don't understand about the long-term preservation of tissue, they imply that ALL THE OTHER PROOF we have about an old earth must be thrown out. Other evolutionary evidence, geological evidence, astronomical evidence -- to the creationist, it must all be thrown out, because we found some red blood cells in a dinosaur!!

And of course, this all proves the Book of Genesis, too.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:24:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (cogzoid @ May 04 2006,11:14)
For anybody interested, his old "LUCA" thread took some wild tangents, eventually ending up at geocentricism, where calls for explanations were eventually met with silence.  But, there are some great assertions that he refused to back down on, such as the imaginary spin of 7-dimensional, super-fluid, crystalline quintessence that makes up the firmament that holds the stars.  Man, just writing that makes me giggle.

Wait, wait, wait. Bear with me for a second. I never paid much attention to the LUCA thread, so I don't know what went on there, but are you saying that GoP is literally a geocentrist? That he actually believes that the sun revolves around the Earth? And that he argues for this position?

Date: 2006/05/04 06:30:39, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Remember what I told you about those who lie to you?

You mean how lies make Baby Jesus cry?  ;)

Date: 2006/05/04 12:38:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 04 2006,11:34)
Not just the sun, my friend. The entire freakin' universe revolves around the earth.

As to what the withered wisp actually believes...
I think he believes in entertaining himself by yanking people's chains on the internet. But the geocentric "model" does have that special cranky something you crave.

Whatever else you can say about the husk, he keeps 'em coming back for more.

This is true. If what you're craving is that rich and creamy taste full of crackpotty goodness, nothing quite scratches that itch quite like someone saying the sun and the whole rest of the universe revolves around the earth.

It also makes it that much easier to dismiss his opinions on earthly matters like, oh, I dunno, gay marriage. Cuz if he can't get the basic relation of the earth and the sun right...

Date: 2006/05/04 20:10:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
“It’s gonna be very difficult to use the courts,” (referencing the Dover decision) Alderman, who is a Christian, said. “The argument needs to be won in the universities...

I'm glad they now think this. There was always a fear they'd get ID/C in thru corrupt judges. If their plan now is to 'win it in the universities', they truly are screwed.

So let them waste their efforts.  :)

Date: 2006/05/07 07:14:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Larry's now calling his critics 'shitheads'? Tsk tsk tsk. So much for his short-lived 'moral high ground'.  :D

"Everyone everywhere repeatedly tells me I have no idea what I'm talking about in terms of the law or biology. But I know that they're all wrong. I just know. Besides, John Davison said he likes me!"

Date: 2006/05/07 08:20:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 07 2006,13:04)
and for that matter, all criticism of itself:

"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

Massive, powerful, wealthy religious organizations have a 'fundamental human right' not to be criticized? News to me...

Oh, and I see Opus Dei is getting involved. THAT should be fun...

And all this fuss over a shitty, plagiarized book like the DaVinci Code. Yeesh.

Date: 2006/05/07 08:25:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Yup. Barry's a tard.

Here's an amusing quote from that article, BTW:

"Almost all Jews recognize that America's Christian heritage is the main reason our country is not infected with the scourge of anti-Semitism seen in post-Christian Europe," Lapin said. "

Yup, Christians always keep Jews safe. That was why the Holocaust happened -- all those Muslims in 1940's Germany.


Date: 2006/05/07 14:29:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 07 2006,19:10)
NYT article about anti-contraception nutballs.

Kimberly Zenarolla, for one, is applying the theology of the body to the American political sphere. She is the director of strategic development for the National Pro-Life Action Center, a two-year-old organization with 10,000 members that lobbies on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and contraception. She's also a single 34-year-old who lives in Washington with, as she put it, "a group of young professionals who are living the countercultural message of chastity to its fullest expression."

Zenarolla told me she converted to Catholicism two years ago: "I tell people I became Catholic because of the church's teaching on contraception. We are opposed to sex before marriage and contraception within marriage. We believe that the sexual act is meant to be a complete giving of self. Of course its purpose is procreation, but the church also affirms the unitive aspect: it brings a couple together. By using contraception, they are not allowing the fullness of their expression of love. To frustrate the procreative potential ends up harming the relationship."

I can't remember his name now, but there was a loon on (I think) Pharyngula late last year who was also giving us that 'contraception destroys relationships between men and women' line, as well as rather lame notions about how it's harmful to women's health. As I recall, there was a huge pile on in reaction to the guy, he lamely tried to defend his rather atavistic position, then dropped out of sight. Can't recall the guy's name or the name of the thread, tho, or I'd give a link.

Date: 2006/05/07 14:37:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Yes, America is not infected with anti-semitism like Europe, but it has less to do with a christian heritage than with Founding Father wisdom at getting church and state out of each others' business and the two hundred+ year fight to get that wisdom enforced.

Indeed, it has nothing to do with a Christian heritage. ALL the most virulently Antisemitic countries of Europe were Christian. If secular Europe is still antisemitic, it's probably just because Europe has always been antisemitic, and the fading of Christianity in Europe didn't make a difference. Anyone who thinks that secularism is the cause of antisemitism is staggeringly ignorant of history.

Date: 2006/05/08 04:15:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?

The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here:

Please go back and try again. You don't want to make Christians look stupid, do you?

Date: 2006/05/08 04:29:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ May 08 2006,08:55)

I like the nuance from geocentrism but I'd really like to see the scale free marriage model because it almost seems dumber. God Ghost, .your so interesting I'll probably forget which way I voted and read anyway. So why don't you just pretend that I voted for the one you like 18 times? That ought to be interesting.

Oh oh oh... I got it. I want a clear and understandable description of how I can understand eternity

The most important aspect to understanding eternity is that gay marriage is really, really, really bad. Got it?

Date: 2006/05/08 05:34:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be without AIG?

Okay, Dave try answering this.

Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.


This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?

Yes. If you weren't ignorant of evolutionary biology and how the scientific process works, this wouldn't shock you. If you want to rationalize your ideas by appeals to more than Christian apologetics, you have to try harder.

Date: 2006/05/08 05:50:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved'  

You really think this is a 'contradiction'? ? ?

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.

Date: 2006/05/08 06:01:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 08 2006,10:54)

Read all about it!

Give 'em credit, they're actually quite funny, and most of it is deliberate.  Larry's comment, I have my suspicions about.


Imitating Larry in public forums seems to have become quite the cottage industry.

At least, for Larry's sake, I HOPE that's someone imitating him. I don't think he's anywhere near self-aware enough to parody himself like that.

Date: 2006/05/08 06:11:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.

Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

You're right, Dave. You've defeated us. We give up. You win. We secular liberals are so weakened by not going to church, pot smoking, voting Democrat, and advanced degrees that we had no defenses for a true Christian logic, a man who was willing to start with the Bible and to bravely and incisively go wherever the evidence leads, and who objectively is not tied to any particular view but who only seeks the truth. When we make fun of you, it's not that we think your arguments are inconsequential or ridiculous -- it's because we're AFRAID of you, and ASHAMED. No one who has come on to this site before has shown us what you've shown us -- that all our book larnin is for naught. That in fact, the LESS one knows about history and the development of man, the BETTER qualified one is to discuss it.

GOD, we're embarrassed, Dave. But I guess your experience in the military was what qualified you to defeat us secular humanists where GoP and Thordaddy always failed before.

Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:00:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ May 08 2006,12:42)
Well, no kidding. Letting gays marry. Next we'll be letting the cia sell cocaine.

I can't tell you how much my marriage and family have been nearly destroyed due to gays getting married. Remember that time when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage? I swear, we had a hellish month immediately after that. My wife almost left me, I became a Muslim, and my daughter held up a liquor store. Then when the mayor of San Francisco started allowing gay marriages, the three of us had a knife fight right out in public, and my daughter started a huge heroin-selling ring. But every November when a bunch of new Southern or Rocky Mountain states specifically ban it, we just do great for months after. It's simply unimaginable what will happen to us if there's ever a constitutional amendment legalizing it.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:53:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:

"Luther and the Jews"

See Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies
Luther's views on the Jews have been described as racial or religious anti-Semitism, [25] or as anti-Judaism. [26] He initially believed that the Jews had been prevented from believing in Christ by the actions of Christians, and the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure Gospel. He imagined that they would respond favorably to the evangelical message. When they did not, his fury was aroused, fanned by the appearance of a forged document purporting to be written by a Jew, which was insulting to Christian faith.
In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time."[27] He also appeared to sanction their murder: [28] "Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world ... So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem ... We are at fault in not slaying them."[29]
British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust."[30] Four centuries after it was written, the Nazis cited Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution.[31] Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally denouncing these writings, though they carefully qualify their declarations to fall short of characterizing Luther as an anti-Semite.

A whole bunch more info is HERE:

So, uh, Dave, don't pretend Luther 'fixed' everything.

(And let's not even MENTION Luther's weird shit fetish...)

Date: 2006/05/08 12:46:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 08 2006,16:22)
Well in the islamic world you get beheaded for dissing the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him).

The funny thing is that some of these spokesmen for the Vatican sound kind of jealous of that. Like "Aw, GEE, those Muslims get to BEHEAD their heretics, but we can't DO that anymore! No FAIR!"

Date: 2006/05/08 13:47:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
See? Steve doesn't realise that people who think differently than himself may also contribute something valuable to the discussion.

No, he thinks people who believe stupid, superstitious junk science have nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion. You, uh, can't see that distinction?

I bet I could find living Young Earth Creationists who have made more significant contributions to science, technology and/or society than he has, but that doesn't matter.

And I could find a million evolutionary biologists who've made bigger contributions to science than you have. What's your point?

The truth of this statement only depends on Steve not being a biologist.
Any evolutionary biologist has made a greater contribution to that field than any young earth creationist. Maybe there are young earth creationists who've made great contributions to fields where thinking that the earth is 6,000 years old or that the sun revolves around the earth is irrelevant, but in analyzing evolution or the history of life, the work of a young earth creationist will be no better than junk.

Date: 2006/05/08 13:50:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 08 2006,17:35)
Steve has his unevidenced beliefs, you see, and that's all that matters. Oh yes, and getting the moderator/government to censor non-Steve-like points of view.
Anybody who believes this lying piece of 5hit, email Wes and ask him if I've ever requested Paley be censored.

Actually, this board allows the word 'shit' but not 'd * a * m * n'. Go figure.

Date: 2006/05/08 14:07:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Code Sample
I thought the DaVinci Code was a fun read, if not particularly strong literature, but I didn't at all buy into it as any form of fact. All this complaining from the Catholic church just keeps it selling.

Indeed. When I was a kid, my mother told me that back in the 1950's, the Catholic church maintained a list of movies that were banned by the church and which no good Catholic should see. This list was eagerly read by my mom and her friends as a reliable guide to the best movies that would be out there, and she would always go see them.

Date: 2006/05/09 04:27:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages

What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords.

What? ? ? Where did you read that? No offense, but that's nonsense.

There are no grammatical or phonetic differences between tribal languages and nontribal languages. All languages started out as 'tribal', including English.

I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:

You're referring to the Piraha language of the Amazon:ã_language


no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some),

Not quite true, they have 3 such terms, which is still an abnormally small number.

no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none.

This is one of the odder things. They don't know that the language previously possessed no pronouns, not having old documentation on the language, but there is no evidence in the language for native, unborrowed pronouns.

They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me,

I wouldn't say that says anything about how primitive their LANGUAGE is, but it's a reflection of their culture. And a very weird fact. I've never heard of any other 'primitive tribe' anywhere that lacked those things.

although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.

Right. The language is grammatically very complex, which is one of the few ordinary things about it.

These claims about Piraha are quite controversial in linguistics, since it's extremely hard to find any other languages anywhere that share such features, such as the lack of numbers, the incredibly small number of kinship terms (many Indian languages of North America can have 40+ kinship terms, with systems much more complex than that of English), and an extremely small phoneme inventory (tho its inventory is not the smallest in the world). In other words, Piraha is very abnormal indeed, even when compared to other languages of 'primitive tribes', or even languages of neighboring Amazonian tribes. I have done a lot of work on North American Indian languages, and no language I've seen there shares ANY of these bizarre features.

In my opinion, setting aside things like pidgins, there is no such thing as a 'primitive language'. Languages of 'primitive tribes' are often grammatically staggeringly complex, far more so than English or Mandarin. There are some odd things that verge on primitive in Piraha, but the complex verb morphology would seem to negate the idea that you could call the language as a whole 'primitive'.

Date: 2006/05/09 06:23:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Flint @ May 09 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Dawkins is good. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural History, and collected many of them into a half dozen excellent books. Ernst Mayr wrote some highly accessible stuff.

I've actually never read any of Dawkins' books. Can anyone recommend what the best one to start with would be?

Date: 2006/05/09 07:31:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.

I'm confused, Dave -- since scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you that Darwinism is junk science, who exactly was it that came up with the conclusion that it is?

You know, we should probably clarify this before politicians start 'punishing' schools, and all...

Date: 2006/05/09 10:10:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.


Date: 2006/05/09 10:13:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 09 2006,13:35)
Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,13:10)
Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???

Yeah, I have the feeling that eventually AFDave's threads will degenerate to where they're indistinguishable from Thordaddy's threads. He'll keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, while we'll wearily repeat the same devastating rebuttals of them over and over again.

Gets tedious after a while.

It looks like even Thordaddy got tired of that. Now he's content to just drop by every so often and fulminate against gays.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:27:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
=jeannot,May 09 2006,15:18][=Arden Chatfield,May 09 2006,15:10][quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)
So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.


You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )

Yeah, 'Dunkirk' is the usual British spelling of 'Dunkerque'.

The English also pronounce 'Calais' as 'cally'. Ouch.

I shouldn't complain, tho, all Anglophones pronounce 'Paris' as 'perriss'. Oh well.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:48:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Vitamin C: The Designer apparently decided to give humans, chimps, gorillas AND guinea pigs broken vitamin C making enzymes. Well, it's been said The Designer works in mysterious ways; I suppose He must have had a reason for doing that. But why did he give all the primates the same defect, and the guinea pigs another?

Some sort of punishment for the Garden of Eden, no doubt.

Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:52:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:51)
What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...

Date: 2006/05/09 11:16:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 09 2006,16:06)
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...

being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

(a) I thought that was hamsters, not guinea pigs, and
(b) it's an urban legend anyway.

Date: 2006/05/09 17:16:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 09 2006,17:27)
Dembski chokes off yet another voice of dissent from his smile-a-while-a-creationist blog:

A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.

Comment by William Dembski — May 8, 2006 @ 7:01 pm

Can anyone dig up the offending remarks made by "Chris_UK"?  It came from this thread

Did I miss something? Why is Big Bill back? Isn't dear old DAVETARD supposed to be doing this banning?

Date: 2006/05/11 04:22:25, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 09 2006,22:42)
bans for everyone!

Including you! And your homo boyfriend! -dt

Awwww.... that's the stuff! I feel better now.

Date: 2006/05/11 04:50:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Renier @ May 11 2006,08:53)
Steve, searching for DaveScot would not yield much. He was posting under different names, normally someting like "davison the liar" etc. Oh, one more thing, don't search for an science related stuff... there is almost none...

Are we sure all those posts from 'Davison the liar' etc. are really our beloved DT? Some of them have to be people pretending to be DT and just messing with Davison's mind...

Date: 2006/05/11 05:00:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,17:36)
Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.
Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?

(Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?)

All well and good, but here's what's confusing me. I think it's obvious that the Designer broke our Vitamin C gene as punishment for the Garden of Eden, eating apples, all that. We've established that scientifically. But this whole 'collateral damage' thing of chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans also getting their Vitamin C taken away baffles me. Why should our Designer punish a bunch of apes like that, and not other animals, like, say, badgers, skunks, Komodo dragons, and kangaroos? Is this some indication that back in the Garden the apes were also disobeying their Lord?

Date: 2006/05/11 06:05:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ May 11 2006,11:02)
Now, let's not jump to conclusions. Sure, it may seem like Ghosty's horror story has no point, but clearly he's just staging a cliff-hanger. Obviously in Part 2 he's going to tie it all together and show how it actually proves something. Probably that's when he'll explain how the Central Park Jogger case, which would seem to run counter to his thesis, is actually the exception that proves the rule.

I'm sure this all connects to Ward Churchill somehow.

Gosh, if only GoP spent as much time on his science as he does on his politics, we'd all be convinced the sun revolves around the earth by now...

Date: 2006/05/11 06:22:58, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (improvius @ May 11 2006,11:13)
Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer.

It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts.

I've linked to this before, but this should clarify a lot, as well as disposing of the idea that the Holocaust was all some Catholic conspiracy and had nothing to do with Protestants:

Date: 2006/05/11 07:04:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 11 2006,11:46)
Tina Brewer chimes in on Dumbski's slanderous character assasination of Kevin Padian.  She's pretty subtle about it but at least her comments were not deleted by Winston Smith (Dumbski) himself:

Do you think that Dr. Padian behaves differently, in essence, than a fundamentalist preacher does?

Comment by tinabrewer — May 9, 2006 @ 9:06 am


I fully agree that reacting with violent rhetoric to the opposing side is sinking to their level. I tried to make this point awhile back on the thread about Ann Coulter’s new book. Why is it not okay to “react” to Kevin Padian, but it is acceptable to support, even actively encourage, the rhetoric of Coulter? Is it because she is on “our” side in this particular issue? That is the inverse of a principled stance…

Comment by tinabrewer — May 11, 2006 @ 11:09 am

Now you've gone and blown her cover. I predict a swift banning in tinabrewer's future.

Interesting how WD seems to have run out of steam in terms of pretending to do science, so now he's sort of reduced to these lowrent swiftboatings in support of ID.

On the Padian thread, it's also interesting how WD is cranking up the volume on this idea that the term 'fundamentalist' is now 'hate speech'. I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of explanations for that...

Date: 2006/05/11 09:19:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 11 2006,14:14)
Someone just nuked the KKK post.  Be sure and make a copy of the graphic before they wake up and remember to delete it.

What utter dorks...

Interesting, I wonder whose idea it was to post it and whose idea it was to delete it. Are Dembski and Scot trying out some kind of good cop/bad cop routine?


Okay, the UD folks are now saying the KKK image was 'totally inappropriate', and are trying to make a big joke out of it. Sort of dodges the issue of WHY they posted it, but nevermind.

This makes it look like someone there posted the image without thinking, since they just loved it so much, then *someone* there (same person? who knows) checked in on this site or PT, saw the word 'libel' bandied around, and then said "OH SHIT! PULL IT, PULL IT!!!"

Good times. :-)

Date: 2006/05/11 14:04:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 11 2006,17:36)

It seems the peanut gallery liked the “Defenders of Science” political satire so much they archived it at

Check it out quick before they make it disappear!

Comment by DaveScot — May 11, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

This is just bizarre. Davetard, who deletes things, and deleted his klan cartoon, links to our archiving of it, and then smears us as soon to delete it. That's some kind of recursive irony.

This might support the idea that the cartoon was Dave's idea but Dembski pulled it.

Date: 2006/05/11 14:21:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 11 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
Maybe, in which case there's the hyper irony that the Davetard who's defended Dembski's banning policy, and extended it, then relies on our non-censorious site to circumvent it, in order to continue the defamation Dembski began.

Goodness me, that is self-referential! And very Dave.

I said a couple months ago that this thread is the annotated version of UD. Clearly DT agrees. :-)

Whatever the He11 is happening, it's fun to watch.

Yeah, this is just like old times! I was afraid that with Dembski back taking a higher profile, the site would get boring.

Date: 2006/05/11 15:19:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Incidentally, someone just posted this at PT, I thought it needed wider publicity:

Hmm. “Ombudsman” can also be an anagram for “Dumbo’s Man”…

('Ombudsman' is a reference to a sock puppet name DT posted under at PT today, where he said "Asian American" was a 'racially loaded' term.)

Anyway, I think we may have a new DT epithet here...

Date: 2006/05/12 05:51:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,10:03)
"Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys "
Doesn't make any sense at all. The Klan was a christian terror group.

Well, these are the same people who've convinced themselves that the Nazis were all atheists, so what do you expect?

Date: 2006/05/12 09:15:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dante @ May 12 2006,13:33)
DaveRot is starting to remind me of Frank Chu  (read the Wikipedia article to see what I mean).

Oh my god, I used to see that geek every day when I commuted into San Francisco!!! And sure enough, I used to see him at UC Berkeley, as well.

(He merits his own Wikipedia article?????)

Didn't know THIS tidbit:

In early 1985, Chu, then 25 years old, took 11 members of his family hostage in his home in Oakland and was reported to have been beating some with his fists. Chu fired a pistol at one police officer who came to investigate, but missed. Police cordoned off a ten-block area for three hours. Chu eventually released his hostages and surrendered to the police.

Date: 2006/05/12 10:48:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 12 2006,12:39)
"If it is true there is not god, then nothing matters, we can rape all the white women and murder is ok"

It is as if their whole morality is based on the bible and they simply check their intelligence at the door.  They seem to believe that a belief in (or more like fear of) god is the moral fabric that keeps us from killing one another.

I see that argument all the time. What's even weirder is that they essentially admit that their religion is the only thing keeping them from killing or robbing everyone, and then act like this makes them BETTER people than 'nonbelievers'. I've never been able to make any sense of that at all.

And another thing that happens is when someone attacks you for being an atheist using that same argument. It goes like this:

1) there is no morality without belief in a supreme being. God is the only thing keeping us from going out and killing everyone.

2) you do not believe in God.

3) therefore there is nothing keeping YOU from going out and killing and raping people

4) therefore, YOU are a horrible person who is about to go out and kill people.

5) This proves that atheists are all violent, amoral people!

Date: 2006/05/12 11:02:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 11 2006,18:42)

Gosh, if only GoP spent as much time on his science as he does on his politics, we'd all be convinced the sun revolves around the earth by now...

LOL so you're saying a silk purse can be made from a sow's ear, given enough time.

Well, that's how most religions got established... :p

Date: 2006/05/12 11:10:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,09:49)
No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values.

Considering that Mexicans are about 98% catholic, are you saying that all these catholics lack western values?

Nah, if only they had whiter skin and spoke English, they'd qualify as sufficiently 'Western'. Western as defined by conservative Republicans, of course.

This question actually touches upon my basic ambivalence towards our massive Hispanic immigration. On the one hand, Hispanic people(s) do seem to value hard work, faith, and family. On the other hand, their culture(s) also seems to suffer from high levels of crime, a pervasive anti-intellectualism,

Sounds like the American South to me! :-)

and a sense of entitlement

'Entitlement'? ? ? They come here to WORK, and they work 50-60 hours a week at shit jobs. How is that 'entitlement'?

that seems inseparable from their ethnic identity.

Suddenly GOP is an expert anthropologist.

They apparently view values such as sexual modesty and respectful attitudes toward women as "anglo", and have little incentive in preserving them.

Do you actually KNOW any Hispanics, GoP?  Like KNOW them, aside from your maid, Mexican day laborers you see from your car, and facile racism on rightwing websites? Since I live in an area with a lot of Hispanics, and what you're describing here sounds like fantasy land.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:22:53, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 12 2006,14:17)
Oh, by the way, Larry appears to have posted at PT again: here.

Yeah, check out all the bounced responses at the Bathroom Wall. Yeesh.

What happened? Maybe the no. of visitors at his blog dropped and he got lonely?

Date: 2006/05/12 12:26:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 12 2006,17:20)
Because nobody needs to create a whole topic more than occasionally. The rate of proliferation of topics by AFDave for no good reason is annoying in the "this requires moderation" sense.

I actually agree. Basically Dave's threads are all 'about' the same thing, and he generally opens new threads whenever he accumulates too many questions he can't answer and he wants to start with a clean slate. There's no reason to have 3-4 open threads for one person's vanity.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:07:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,17:32)
I like opening new topics for news items. A bunch of people see them, and if they don't start a discussion, they slowly drift down the page and are gone.

I agree with that, in theory, except that AFDave doesn't really open new threads for new ideas. When it gets too hot, he abandons one and focuses on another, generally with some issue that's already been mentioned on one or two other threads. Besides, if one wants to keep one's thread from totally drifting off the front page, one can always go in and post something in it. That pops it right back to the top.

Date: 2006/05/13 05:52:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2006,09:30)
Has anyone else thought the Young Earth Creationists were flexing their muscles more these days, over at Uncommonly Dense?


If a Young Earth seems a better fit, what is the major reason for rejecting it?
There are unanswered questions on all sides. Why choose conventional darwinite ‘wisdom?
They are certainly wrong on other issues.

Comment by mmadigan — May 13, 2006 @ 8:06 am

It's not surprising. The YEC types were just sort of sitting on their hands during the ID 'debates', since they'd all been told this was their shot at getting Jesus into science classes -- but the YEC'ers didn't like ID. Too many big words, it didn't mention Jesus or the Bible, and it didn't say the earth was 6,000 years old. They put up with it for the 'larger good'.

Now that the wheels have come off ID, I assume the YEC types are figuring there's no point in pretending not to want straight Creationism. It might embarrass DT a little, but I bet it's what Dembski really wants anyway.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:26:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 13 2006,12:04)
It appears Kevin hates and fears religious fundamentalists of all stripes and considers them murderous fanatics. Note how he equates suicide bombers with those who kill abortion doctors saying only killing themselves afterward is what separates the two. Kevin Padian is one sick puppy with an irrational hatred of religious fundamentalists.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:56 am

Well, if what you wrote wasn't a blatant lie, Davesy, then I guess Mr. Padian would have been your kind of guy... He is refering to Islamic fundies, after all.

Yup, Dave hates Islamic fundies and loves Christian fundies. What else is new.

Is this 'irrational hatred of religious fundamentalists' bullshit DT's backtracking due to people are calling him on his painting Padian as a Klansman? Or by suggesting that am I giving Dumbo's Man far more credit than he deserves? I've noticed that when little DT gets going on a swiftboating he often shifts focus after a few days when people point out his idiocy.

Date: 2006/05/13 08:12:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 13 2006,12:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2006,12:26)
Dumbo's Man

Woo hoo I started a trend!  :)  *pride*

I've noticed that when little DT gets going on a swiftboating he often shifts focus after a few days when people point out his idiocy.

Yeah, and then he waits for a while until people sort of forget about it, and casually brings it up again as an indisputable fact...
A sinister method indeed, worthy of a higher-IQ genius.
I'm sure he's been googling "Padian Pianka" furiously these days, trying to find something he can use to implicate the two...  ;)

Oh, so 'Dumbo's Man' was your idea? Cool, well done!  :)

Yes, I've noticed that DM seems capable of intelligence, but when it comes to his 'culture wars' nonsense he happily turns off 80% of his brain.

Date: 2006/05/13 08:20:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ May 13 2006,13:14)
Note how he equates suicide bombers with those who kill abortion doctors ...

Look, Dave, if you're going to be a proper wingnut, the term is "homicide bombers."

So Dave doesn't see the similarity in "homicide bombing" a Mosque and "homicide bombing" doctors?

One man's "homicide bomber" is another man's freedom fighter I guess.

I wonder if Dave agrees with bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors? It sure seems that way.

He agrees with whatever's 'conservatively correct'. He might not overtly defend people who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors, but he'll eagerly attack anyone who condemns them. As far as I can tell, DM has no principles that supercede "REPUBLICANS GOOD LIBERALS BAD".

Date: 2006/05/13 10:16:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 13 2006,13:48)
What is conventional Darwinite wisdom?  Should I pop over there and ask them that?  I've never been banned from anywhere before.

You'll never be taken seriously here until you change that.  If you want to gain our everlasting respect, you have to ask something totally innocuous and be banned.

Oh, and doesn't Darwinite wisdom have something to do with banana bending?  Or is that Queensland?


Yes, no one can truly say that they've joined the Club here until Dumbo's Man has banned you. Extra points if he also insults you. Get to work.

'Darwinite' is a special kind of Vegemite they only market in the Northern Territories. Didn't you know that?

Date: 2006/05/13 10:25:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ May 13 2006,15:21)
Yes, no one can truly say that they've joined the Club here until Dumbo's Man has banned you. Extra points if he also insults you. Get to work.

Do I get even more bonus points if I was banned by both Dembski and DaveTard....and if they both posted to announce my ban?

That's pretty good. Did either of them insult you? If so, that makes you a lifetime member here.

Were both bans at the same time, or did you sneak through later and get banned a second time?

Date: 2006/05/14 06:26:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (PuckSR @ May 13 2006,15:59)
Dembski banned be about 1.5 years ago.....
When Dave took over the blog....I was somehow unbanned.
So I was rebanned.

When Dembski banned me Dave went so far as to try and find "evil" facts about me from the net....such as my alternative sexual interests......
I think that counts as insulting...especially since he posted links to other websites to demonstrate my moral inferiority.

Dave actually used to behave when Dembski was around...even though I found his definition of agnostic to be mildly annoying.
The real nutjob used to be Josh Bozeman.  Thordaddy may be his brother.  Every time I talked to him I wound up calling him an idiot.  Not because of his beliefs...but because he was an idiot.  He couldnt read or comprehend other people's posts.  He didnt just ignore them because they ran counter to his beliefs...he honestly seemed to lack the facilities necessary to understand the posts.  

Two bans, with attempted swiftboating. That is pretty darn good. He11, I'd say that qualifies you to be one of the permanent members of the security council, as it were.

Should I ask what Dumbo's Man's definition of 'agnostic' is, or would it ruin my morning to hear it?

I agree with you that Josh Bozeman is in a class all of his own. I mean, none of these people are what I would really call smart, but Josh... there really is a kind of bovine boneheadedness to him. I'm not proud of it, but there is something about him that really brings out a mean streak in me. (But I'm far from the only one who responds to him that way.) You try to explain things to him, and they bounce right off him, like he promised Jesus 15 years ago never to let new facts enter his brain ever again, and a certain chunk of his brain eventually just ossified in response. I found it hilarious when DM banned him when he first tried to gentrify UD, but I suspect they'd let him back in now -- he's completely typical of your average UD poster now.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:36:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2006,07:01)
That's pretty good. Did either of them insult you? If so, that makes you a lifetime member here.

Does this count as a double ban with insult, Arden?


Renard a.k.a. Alan Fox

The jig is up buddy. Time to change your name again if you wish to continue chatting with the intelligent crowd. Sayonara sucker.

Comment by DaveScot — December 19, 2005 @ 7:56 am

I was debating when to lower the boom on Renard. It seems that this is an appropriate time. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — December 19, 2005 @ 8:12 am


From what I can tell, it's not quite a Double Ban With Insult, in that the first ban is really more like a 'moderation warning'. Plus, it was only 16 minutes before your actual banning.

But, on the up side, you did provoke some of DM's legendary tough-guy talk, such as "the jig is up", "buddy", and "sayonara sucker". So don't worry, you're in.  :p

Date: 2006/05/14 06:41:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Aardvark @ May 14 2006,11:37)
afdave at UD:

I spend a lot of time over at Panda’s Thumb at “After the Bar Closes” refuting evolution and defending Intelligent Design …


'Defending Intelligent Design'??? He's a Young Earth Creationist, for fuck's sake! Are they no longer bothering to differentiate the two? ?

Note that he doesn't mention how much time he spends getting laughed at and avoiding questions.

I'm glad he's found a new home. He'll be much happier there.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:59:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2006,11:50)
There are lots of YECs over there. Salvador. this guy.

yeah, this was, uh, amusing:

Respectfully, I consider myself a serious scientist, with no religious predeliction.
I was erroneously misled by darwinian mythologies in my youth. Astrophysics has many
‘old earth’ problems. And except for the haphazard radiodating inculcated with circular reasoning,
I have yet to see insurmountable problems for a Young Earth Geology.
So again, what is unacceptable except the Established Religion Consensus?

A Young Earth Creationist, 'with no religious predeliction'. Suuuurrrrrrre......

This is kind of adorable, too:

"I consider myself a serious scientist".

Yes, and I'm sure your mother thinks you're very handsome, too.

Date: 2006/05/14 08:24:56, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Dante @ May 14 2006,13:14)
Then there was Adolf Hitler, who murdered an estimated 12 million, and built his pagan ideology on the philosophies of eugenics, a creation of Darwinism

I thought he was doing God's work... I mean, it even says that in Mein Kampf. Guess he's just a Darwinian Fundamentalist.

As I learned from Josh Bozeman, the fundie way of getting around the copious evidence linking the Nazis and Hitler to Christianity is to say that Hitler & the Nazis 'couldn't possibly' have been Christians, given all the bad stuff they did, and so therefore they weren't Christians. So therefore, this proves that the Nazis were all atheists. Viola!

So in other words, they argue history the exact same way they argue biology.

Date: 2006/05/14 17:36:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Tiax @ May 14 2006,22:13)
I'm worried...I just had a comment turn-around time of under five minutes (the first time I checked back).  Either there's a very quick moderator on duty at the moment, or I've snuck onto the "good kids" list.


Careful there, better do something to piss Dave off pronto, or your membership here might be seriously endangered...  :D

Date: 2006/05/14 17:57:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"Now Lisa's the Ralph!"

Date: 2006/05/14 18:02:36, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
"Bambi, who set the forest fire and killed your mother? Evolution? Oh, that's horrible!"

Date: 2006/05/15 03:58:07, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 15 2006,06:43)
“Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah’s Ark? Give me a break,” said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. “For them, ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary.”

Here Padian clearly and flippantly states that
somewhere near half of the U.S. population who believe in the biblical account of creation think a popular cartoon show, The Flintstones, is based upon fact. This is bigotry. There’s no getting around it. Padian is a bigot who mocks anyone that takes the bible literally.

Comment by DaveScot — May 15, 2006 @ 6:03 am

Well, I guess that, under that logic, I'm a bigot too; against Davescotian Bull####ists.
Does that sect have some kind of mass anywhere, so I can, you know, stand outside and shout hideous slurs at them- like "cartoon believers"?
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

I think it does more than qualify Dembski's apology, it shows that Dumbo's Man didn't want to apologize at all. He's either defying Dumbo in his wimpy way, or it's some sort of good cop/bad cop shtick -- Dumbo looks good by apologizing, but DM lets you know where they really stand.

And of course, Dumbo's Man hates Muslims, which means that he's 'bigotted' [sic] against one billion of the Earth's inhabitants. He's essentially redefined 'bigotry' to a point of meaninglessness.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:51:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ May 15 2006,09:38)
Padian is a bigot who mocks anyone that takes the bible literally.

I’m deeply offended when I see attacks made not on ideas but instead on the people who hold them


Is it just me, or does there seem to be a trend where people who use the phrase "I’m deeply offended" are almost always assholes?

Date: 2006/05/15 05:44:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 15 2006,10:05)
In any case, I should not have engaged in ad hominems against Kevin Padian and apologize to him for doing so. Perhaps this incident will help persuade both sides in this debate to stay on topic and focus on the issues.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:23 am

...Issues like the ACLU in cahoots with the Dover board to grab taxpayer's money, church burnings, The notorious supervillain Dr. Pianka and, of course, Mr. SNIP SNIP from SNIP SNIP University.

Gotcha, Bill.

The pattern is clear -- every month or so, DM sallies forth with another swiftboating against some villain of evolution. He makes up ridiculous cartoonish lies about the person, ignores anyone who points out that it's nothing but lies, and keeps upping the volume and absurdity for a week or so. Church burning, ebola, klansman, blah, blah, blah. Anything to paint 'evilutionists' as horribly wicked people. His loyal dimbulbs at UD chime in in agreement, and anyone who dissents is quickly banned. Then Demski comes along, posts a stilted retraction, DM makes a few snarls to reassure the faithful that he isn't taking back a single word of it, then it tapers off. Then, a month later, repeat the whole process again with a new talking point.

Dembski and DM have learned well from Karl Rove. This is what ID does in the absence of any research or evidence.

Date: 2006/05/15 05:49:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2006,10:39)
It's been a funny year, with Davetard at the helm.

UD wasn't this much of a freak show last year when it was still just Dembski running it, was it? I wasn't paying much attention back then.

Date: 2006/05/15 07:32:09, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Bart: "According to Creationism, there WERE no cavemen!"

Homer: "Good riddance! Their drawings suck and they look like hippies!"

Date: 2006/05/15 08:44:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I don't think DM is reading off a script anymore -- I think he's just blithering now. He's redefined 'bigot' so broadly it includes anyone. Right about now he should be realizing this includes him, too. WHOOPS.

Date: 2006/05/15 14:01:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 15 2006,15:12)
I think he's just blithering now.

er... just now?

when wasn't he?

Well, DM usually says things that make no sense, but often he seems to sort of have a plan with what he says -- usually as part of his little sociopolitical program. Here, however he just seems to be doing some off-the-cuff babbling, like he's backed into a corner and hasn't thought through what he's saying. You can tell it's gotten this way when he starts deleting or revising his own comments every couple hours.

Date: 2006/05/16 14:39:06, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Good Lord, what ridiculous foolishness. Does Dumbo's Man deliberately advertise for idiots?

Materialism seeks to rank people by status, or demographic profile. Christianity rather ranks doctrine by its fruits (outcomes).

READ: if you're not a Christian, you only care about status and wealth. Christians don't care about those things. And those are the only two categories of people. Everyone on earth is either a selfless Christian or a selfish materialist. And no one is both materialistic and Christian.

Haeckel’s erroneous materialist doctrine bore Monism as its fruit, which resulted in the death of millions.

READ: Darwin = Nazi. If you believe in evolution, you will probably kill 6 million people.

Don't they EVER get tired of this?

The cornerstone of Haeckel’s work was Lamarckism,

Wait, I thought DARWIN was their super-villain! Are they getting confused here?

as was Darwin’s work. “Inheritance of acquired characters” became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Another boob who gets his evolutionary theory from a Jack Chick comic.

No, 'Darwinism' replaces Lamarckism. Or did Lamarck 'recant on his death bed', too?

Making neo-darwinism “the cornerstone of modern science” raises this doctrine to the level of a religion

Um, why does making something the 'cornerstone of modern science' make it a 'religion'?

which rejects creationism.

Creationism? I thought we were talking about Intelligent Design! Isn't there supposed to be a difference? ?

It could easily be coined “Neo-monism”, but rather is called “New Age”.

Wait, what the fuck? People who believe in evolution are New Age? Does this guy even know what 'New Agers' are?

ID seeks to replace Neo-darwinism as the cornerstone of modern science, but is currently being rejected by the shapers of our world.

'Shapers of our world'? ? ? Biologists are 'the shapers of our world'?

That's much more palatable for him to say than "scientists all agree that Intelligent Design is a load of shit". That statement would make his argument a lot more complicated.

The word “corner-stone” here is key (pun intended). There is but one such stone that bears the fruit of life. Can I say “Jesus” on this blog? While ID at least recognizes the possiblity of a creator, it is still not a confession of faith, no matter who advocates it.

True. It also 'recognizes the possibilty' of space aliens, WINK WINK.

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Also Eph 2:20 Mat 21:42 Mar 12:10 Luk 20:17 1Pe 2:7)
Eph 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

Didn't you guys say Intelligent Design had nothing to do with religion?


Date: 2006/05/16 14:53:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,19:24)
Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier?

Comment by mynym — May 16, 2006 @  5:31 pm
He11 does that mean?

They just can't give up that 'Darwinist = Nazi' meme.

'Trying to support Darwinian imagery'? What the fuck?

Anyway, as always, Mynym has his head up his ass. Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier, and I know dozens of 'Darwinists' who've argued with him at great length, myself included.

Date: 2006/05/16 15:11:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

I used to have a far side panel up on my office door that showed some guy in glasses all duded up, with two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk.

IIRC the caption was:

"Get out of the way! An ecologist is coming!"

Larson did that? If so, he ripped it off from a 70's cartoon by B. Kliban, which showed the same guy in glasses all duded up, with two scantily-clad women hanging on him, and two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk, with the caption "Out of the way, scum! A CARTOONIST is coming!"

Date: 2006/05/17 06:02:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ May 17 2006,09:27)
To be fair, it is not only Darwinism or materialism which ranks peoples on earth according to value. The ancient Jews were the “chosen people”, and many a missionary in former centuries was motivated to lift people up from out of their primitive condition(s) and into the enlightenment of Christianity. it is only that the materialist uses as his measuring stick the attributes of the physical body, which cannot be changed at will (racism) and that makes his philosophy particularly detestable.

Comment by tinabrewer — May 16, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

Apparently all "materialists" (i.e. evilutionatheists) are racists.

I think UD should just admit it's quit having anything to do with evolution and is now just a site for whiny amateur fundie Christian apologetics.

Date: 2006/05/17 06:14:38, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thurdl01 @ May 17 2006,07:42)
And...and I don't have a problem with someone like that.  He accepts creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith, rather than deluding himself and lying to others about it being something that can be backed up with science.  Faith is an amazingly powerful thing, and more power to Wise.  If you believe, if you truely believe, that's the get out of jail free card, and no one can touch you.

It's only when people start to try to contort the physical world around them into their beliefs that problems start.

Agreed. If all Wise is saying is 'I believe the Earth is young because I have to believe the bible, but I acknowledge that there's mountains of scientific evidence that makes this difficult', I find that a lot less offensive than someone who also believes in YEC but who cloaks it in a pseudoscientific disguise and lies about it.

For example:

Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

This speaks fairly well of him. If he was Hovind or Dembski, he'd just make shit up or lie about this. He sounds like he at least knows enough science to know that if he claims these really were human bones, his claim would be ripped to shreds in the scientific literature for years to come and 'his side' would be made to look just that much more ignorant and foolish. And he also seems to know he'd be lying.

That said, people like Wise who've deliberately decided to turn off half their brain seldom do any meaningful research. But he could be behaving much worse.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:00:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 17 2006,12:27)
I was (I think) just banned from UD.  On reading this thread I think this is unexceptional, but it's interesting to note that this was in:

which is an attack on claims of quote mining, and extolls the accuracy of Creationist and ID quoting ability --- these are apparently people who never quote out of context or get a reference wrong.  Of course in the same article Barry can't spell "Eldredge".

I tried to assist subtley, and then more directly, and then was banned.  Such is life I guess.

However in banning me, Dave Scot decided to edit my post, substantially changing its import, effectively misquoting me.

And here's the UD comment policy:


Comment Integrity - Very rarely will I edit a comment. It either gets posted whole or flushed whole. On the rare occasions I edit one I’ll add a note about what and why. However, I often do append my comments to your comments because it’s far easier for me to do it that way in the editorial comment viewer. I try to do it at the end and clearly mark what I added.

What planet are these guys from?

Another UD refugee, washed ashore at ATBC. Welcome!

Do you need a blanket, or perhaps some coffee and donuts?  :p

Totally innocuous comments can easily get you banned at UD. I think DM is screening for attitude. He carefully scrutinizes each post by someone who's not 'proven', to see if that person's attitude can be trusted. If he sniffs some kind of 'attitude problem' (read = 'cannot be trusted to always agree with DM & WD' ), out you go, even if you haven't done anything.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:35:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (GCT @ May 17 2006,13:28)
They try so hard, and yet reading UD is still like watching a monkey hump a football.

Congratulations, you win Post of the Month for that.  :)

Date: 2006/05/17 09:12:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Perhaps Dembski got this 'cash reward' idea from Hovind?

Date: 2006/05/17 18:16:10, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Despite the fact of European racism towards blacks and Jews was prevelant long before Charles Darwin was even born.  Are these folks truly ignorant of Luther's virulent anti-semitism?  

I'm confused. Everything in the above statement is true. What on earth are you objecting to? Are you simply getting offended at Luther's antisemitism being pointed out?

Start here:

Date: 2006/05/17 18:24:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,22:21)
A good guess for the Flood of Noah is probably somewhere between 2000 and 3000 BC.

Except that Noah's flood didn't happen, Dave. That means these dates are meaningless.

People who tell you otherwise are lying to you.


Date: 2006/05/18 04:31:11, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 17 2006,19:36)
I'd rather be trapped in a room with Heddle, DaveScot, JAD, Carol Clouser, Blast, afdave, and thordummy

I think I'd rather be on that Dateline sex predator bust than be in that room.

(Put the phone down Dembski, I was just kidding. No need to call Homeland Securitah)

So, Steve, did you actually end up buying and reading the DaVinci Code, or did you go with one of the other suggestions made here?

Date: 2006/05/18 15:07:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 18 2006,15:22)
Carol said:    
As to why Noah couldn't escape to a nearby mountain, first, that is none of your business

My vote for funniest stupid remark by a fundie this week.  What's even more hilarious is that she goes on to answer for God, even though it's none of our business.

Hmm. Maybe it's Carol's business, but just not ours?

I must remember that. If I ever say anything senseless that I can't back up, and someone calls me on it, I'll just say that is none of your business. Woo hoo!

Date: 2006/05/18 15:11:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (UnMark @ May 18 2006,17:16)
Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,12:56)
Dave, I've asked before, but haven't gotten an answer: can God create another God?  Can God create a better God?
I have no knowledge if God can do those things.  To me they are silly questions.

It may seem silly to you, but let me explain a bit, as it's related to this inerrancy discussion.  You believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect (among other things).  Okay.  If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a better God.  If God can create a better God, then he isn't as perfect as the "new" God.  So, either God isn't able to create a better God, and is therefore not omnipotent, or God can create a better God, and is therefore not perfect.  

Can't be both, so which attribute does He have: omnipotence or perfection?

Never mind all that: could God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?

Date: 2006/05/18 16:09:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
'Max Power'? 'Buck Strongo'? 'Hugh Jass'? 'Amanda Huginkiss'?

Date: 2006/05/18 16:41:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 18 2006,21:27)
Not directly related, but my favorite name of anything is the name of the band Stark Naked and the Car Thieves.

Agreed, they had the best band name evar. And they're from my (former) hometown of San Jose!

But I also like 'Two-Headed Grampa', which I saw in Bloomington, Indiana, long ago.

But hey, this isn't helping Sir TJ!

Oliver Klozoff? Heywood Jablome? Al Coholic?

Date: 2006/05/19 04:26:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Good lord, I had no idea they'd found 190 extrasolar planets. I didn't think the number was that big. I assume they're all Jupiter or Saturn-like in size?

I remember taking college astronomy in the early '80s, when they were still saying they hadn't found any extrasolar planets yet, because they were too small and hard to see.

Date: 2006/05/20 10:39:18, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
This is especially beautiful:


22. You don’t trust scientists in general because they are all part of a vast, atheistic conspiracy to foist a cooked-up story on an ignorant public, in order to promote godlessness and materialism.

21. You don’t trust all those scientists who claim to be Christian, because if they were really Christian, they wouldn’t have joined that vast atheistic conspiracy, now would they?

20. You know that the evidence really does support a divine origin for the cosmos, and you can back that up with surveys that show most scientists think the scientific evidence is consistent with their belief in God.

19. You believe all three of the above simultaneously.

Date: 2006/05/20 16:57:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,18:59)
My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]

does that explain Woodstock?

Yeah, I think that was the title of a really embarrassing song Eric Burdon recorded around 1969.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:17:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 20 2006,18:02)
You just crashed and burned about your Portuguese thing.

Um, Dave?

I have a PhD in linguistics, and I can tell you: if you say Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, you have NO IDEA AT ALL what you're talking about.

Portuguese is most closely related to Spanish, by a long shot. It is most similar to Spanish in lexicon, grammar, and morphology. I have known speakers of one who claim they can understand the other. If you can read one, reading the other is not too difficult. Neither statement is true of French. The massive sound changes Portuguese underwent differentiating it from Spanish have NOTHING to do with French.

Besides, Dave, how can Portuguese be a 'mixture' of Spanish and French when Portugal is several hundred miles from France?

I'm afraid your approach to linguistics is just about as rigorous as your approach to biology and geology.

I assure you, Rilke's GD does not owe you any money.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:20:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2006,19:07)
That's because you're a philistine, and haven't seen the most important film of our time.

"PC load letter? What the fuck does that mean?"

Date: 2006/05/20 17:25:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: #### straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: Well what about you now? what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, I would sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:49:16, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,22:44)
Perhaps it was his assertion, on one of these threads, that the U.S.A. was founded on the christian bible (IIRC).

I must have missed that one, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he had.

I think it's quite cunning of our Founding Fathers to have based this country on Biblical principles without once ever mentioning 'Jesus', 'Christianity', or 'the bible' in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Some day Dave will have to explain to me why they 'forgot' to mention those things.

Date: 2006/05/20 18:40:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
The problem is I haven't been following the two AFDave threads for a while, so I'm having to play catch up here.

Okay, this seems to be the 'meat' of AFD's argument:


1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

And, by the same logic, because some Hessian and Polish generals helped out Washington in the Revolutionary War, American English is actually a mixture of English, German and Polish. [SARCASM]

I think Dave here is trying to say that because the French had an influence on Portuguese history, that means that 'Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish'.

So we can add linguistics to the list of disciplines that AFDave knows nothing about but thinks he knows about.

I repeat: the language that Portuguese is closest to is Spanish. By a big margin. This is exactly what we'd expect, since Portuguese borders on no language OTHER than Spanish.

Spanish and Portuguese are quite close. They share a huge amount of morphology and vocab. They even share the dozens of Arabic loans that entered Iberian Romance during the Moorish occupation of Iberia. (Words that are absent from French.)

Spanish and Portuguese are also reputed to sort-of be mutually intelligible. That is, fluent speakers of one can understand much of the other. I've never heard ANYONE claim that Portuguese and French are that way.

I think what AFDave is trying to say is "I don't understand Portuguese or Spanish, but Portuguese kinda sounds like French, and I heard the French played a role in Portuguese history. Therefore, Portuguese must be a combination of Spanish and French!"

You can see the similarities to how he argues about evolution. This is definitely a man capable of thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Another point: the only way Portuguese could be a mixture of Spanish and French would be if French had the opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way. This would involve massive bilingualism between Portuguese and French, for example with a huge influx of French speakers inhabiting Portugal, or if the Portuguese speech community bordered on the French speech community. Neither of these things happened.

It is not nearly enough for the French to have influenced the course of Portuguese history to claim this indicates Portuguese is a 'mix' of Spanish and French. And saying things like "But Portuguese and French both have nasals and that 'zh' sound!" isn't enough, either. You'd have to find ways in which Portuguese became grammatically more like French, or a large body of French loanwords in Portuguese. I challenge Dave to show us such things.

I also invite AFDave to find an article by an authority on Romance linguistics (a real linguist) who claims there is a French influence on Portuguese. Vague similarities and political connections don't prove it.

The burden of proof is on Dave here, since no linguist I can find anywhere backs him up.

Date: 2006/05/20 19:15:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 21 2006,00:04)
Quote (BWE @ May 20 2006,23:55)

Um, I could make as good of an argument that English is a mix of germanic and french as I can that Portuguese is not what Davey-dumbo says it is. Typically, the history of a language is classified by the surviving writing.

You might be able to, but I don't think any linguist would agree with you that English is a romance language, like  French, Spanish, Italian, and yes, Portuguese. English is definitely a Germanic tongue.

English is a Germanic language. Period. Its grammar and core lexicon are Germanic. Granted, after the Norman invasions it acquired a huge amount of French vocabulary, but that does not make it a Romance language. It makes it a Germanic language with a big French influence. Not the same thing.

(And Portuguese doesn't even have that.)

To say that English is Romance, one would have to say that Japanese is both Chinese and English, since Japanese has a huge number of loans from both those languages. No one would want to make either statement.

The question of whether English is a 'mix' of Germanic and French is somewhat more interesting. I don't think most linguists would go so far as to say that English is a mixed language, since fundamentally, the grammar of English owes very little to French. And, as I said, most of the core everyday vocab of English is still Germanic.

The influence of French on English is much bigger than that of French on Portuguese, and yet phonetically French and English are very different. This shows that impressionistic phonetic 'similarities' really count for very little.

Date: 2006/05/21 05:51:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:59)
Arden said ...    
Another point: the only way Portuguese could be a mixture of Spanish and French would be if French had the opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way.

Uh ... er ... a big influence, huh ... like maybe thousands of French knights coming over to help Alfonso VI, maybe?  Did you even read my post?  Here's the part you might have missed ...
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  

If you want to argue something new, go start a new thread on Martin Luther, or the Catholic church, or Hitler or something else fun.

'The mix is quite obvious'. The same way as a 6,000-year-old earth is 'obvious', eh, Dave?

Perhaps it takes the LACK of a PhD to see it.

Okay, Dave, it's like this. No linguistics article I've read by anyone who actually knows anything about linguistics says ANYTHING about Portuguese being a 'mix' of French and Spanish. No one.

But to you, with your lack of training think it's 'obvious'.

Okay, Dave. Prove it. So far all the evidence you've offered is 'if you've heard all three languages it's obvious'. That might be exactly what one needs to argue for Creationism, but linguistics holds itself to a higher standard than that, fortunately. Give us the evidence. You can do one of two things: you can either refer us to published linguistic articles by specialists in Romance languages where they explain how Portuguese is a mix of French and Spanish, or two, you can give us your own evidence. What would that be? Give us characteristics that Portuguese has it shares with French and not Spanish. And your impressionistic hunches about phonetics don't count. You have to produce lexicon and grammar -- a lot of it -- to prove this. Words and grammatical features French and Portuguese have but not Spanish. Cuz if your, uh, 'theory' is true, there should be plenty such examples.

Can you do that? Either references or raw data?

The burden of proof is on you, Dave. Cuz here's how it stacks up:


OTHER SIDE: Everyone else, including all linguists.

This isn't religious apologetics, Dave. You can't just make shit up and have it become true.

Date: 2006/05/21 05:54:57, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)

So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

It was probably in a mix of French and Spanish.  :p

Date: 2006/05/21 05:58:21, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,16:53)
If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.

you're setting yourself up for an obvious creo answer.

should I?  of course :p

Obviously the reason that the Iceman sent his kids to Catholic school was so that they wouldn't turn out to be evil murdering atheists like himself.  It's just further proof that atheism causes mass murder.

duhhhh ;)

sorry, i just had to.

Or maybe Dave can revert to the standard "Catholics aren't really Christians" argument?

Date: 2006/05/21 06:05:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hmmmm. How long will DM tolerate one of his flunkies favorably comparing Intelligent Design to homeopathy?  :p

Poor DM. For all his efforts, he gets nothing but idiots on UD, and what's really sad is, he knows it.

Date: 2006/05/21 06:23:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bing @ May 21 2006,11:21)
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

Chick tracts are written in English, so the answer is presumably 'yes'.

Sad to say, I once found some Spanish-language Jack Chick tracts on a bus bench, so all bets are off.  :p

Date: 2006/05/21 06:35:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Just had to comment on this:

Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.

So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future.

Only in religious apologetics do things that DIDN'T happen qualify as 'evidence'.

And only in religious apologetics does this DISPROVE the ideas that (a) God simply doesn't exist or (b) if God exists, he simply has no effect on earthly events.

It's no wonder that he thinks Young Earth Creationism is 'obvious'.

Date: 2006/05/21 06:39:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,11:32)
I especially love that painting on the wall. I want that for my living room. The banana's a nice touch.

I want a t-shirt with that gorilla on it. With the banana. And the 'OUR FATHER' caption.

Has anyone else ever noticed that in Jack Chick tracts, the evil professors always look Jewish, and the noble Christians who save the day always look Nordic? Leni Riefenstahl couldn't have asked for better.

Date: 2006/05/21 06:44:32, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Of course, this is the obvious consequence of banning anyone who shows signs of independent thought.

There should be a big sign when you open UD: YOUR IQ MUST BE THIS LOW TO ENTER!

Date: 2006/05/21 07:05:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,11:45)
I think everyone has noticed that. :-)

Supposedly there were some tracts he no longer publishes which were more explicit about nonwhites.

Are those now 'collector's items'?  :p

Date: 2006/05/21 08:42:54, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ May 21 2006,13:24)
Thanks Bing,
I especially like the line at the end:
If you believe in evolution intead of Jesus, you'll end up in he!l

"Evolution instead of Jesus".


Chick is good, I'll give him that. Goebbels could have learned from this man.

Cuz we all know the opposite of evolution is Jesus, and it's logically impossible for anyone to believe in both (or neither).

Also, has anyone noticed how Chick seems to make heavy use of randomly boldfacing inappropriate words? For example:

If you believe in evolution intead of Jesus, you'll end up in he!l

I mean, WHY is 'you' boldfaced TWICE there?

This seems to be a chronic issue in Chick's work. Maybe whatever's fucked up his brain has slightly scrambled his ability to write properly.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:02:04, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ May 21 2006,14:10)
You know what I can't help wondering: in all these transformations (Galician/Latin/Spanish/Portuguese... or Germanic/Chaucerian-English/Modern-English...) what was the role of the Tower of Babel?

Well, I assume that AFDave is completely convinced that the Tower of Babel 'incident' happened, about 5,000 years ago I'd guess. Since that would predate the breakup of Latin into the Romance languages (it would predate the breakup of most of Indo-European), he'd probably testily reply that it has no relevance to his present forays into Romance linguistics.

No new information has been added to languages since the original "language kinds" were created by G at Babel, right? Just bad mutations and loss of information.

Maybe Dave concedes linguistic microevolution but not linguistic macroevolution?  :p

Date: 2006/05/21 11:34:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

The unprinciple exception, no doubt.  And how do we know your not the bigot against traditional marriage?  You're everybit as stuck to your opinions and prejudices than the next guy.  So much so, that you can't think of ANY REASON to discriminate against homosexuality.  By this very fact, you take an extremist position that goes against hundreds of years of history.  We usually call this a radical.

"The bigot against traditional marriage". Wow.

Thordaddy lays it on the line: unless you support WITHOLDING civil rights from certain unpopular groups, "your" a bigot.  

So I guess this means that the least bigoted people in America are, by extension, those groups that SUPPORT having unpopular groups lose their civil rights -- like Thordaddy.

Or, back in the pre-civil rights South, the people who wanted Blacks to vote and have their civil rights -- a VERY UNPOPULAR position in the South -- those Civil Rights advocates were the REAL bigots!

And it was bigoted for the North to OPPOSE slavery, since it had served the South so well for 200 years.

And you know what we call people who oppose popular, old ideas? "We usually call this a radical".

Date: 2006/05/21 12:57:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I care if a radical super-minority tries to completely abolish a cultural institution that has served our country well even with the relentless assault that has taken place over the last 50 years.

Really, it's quite simple. If gays are allowed to marry, the entire institution of marriage will cease to exist. Period.

How do we know this? Well, Thordaddy hasn't offered any, like, evidence, but he's given me his word, and that's good enough for me.

Date: 2006/05/21 13:24:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Some other stuff little Old Adolf said:


The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations

Compiled by Jim Walker

Originated: 27 Feb. 1997
Additions: 21 Nov. 2005

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933

[Note, "Except the Lord built the house, they labour in vain" comes from Psalms 127:1 ]

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.
-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!-- we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'
-Adolf Hitler, giving prayer in a speech on May Day 1933

This is for us a ground for satisfaction, since we desire that the fight in the religious camps should come to an end... all political action in the parties will be forbidden to priests for all time, happy because we know what is wanted by millions who long to see in the priest only the comforter of their souls and not the representative of their political convictions.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the men of the SA. at Dormund, 9 July 1933 on the day after the signing of the Concordat.

National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.... The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church.... It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church.
-Adolf Hitler, on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.
-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"

Among the congregations of the Protestant confessions there has arisen in the "German Christians' a movement that is filled with the determination to do justice to the great tasks of the day and has aimed at a union of the Protestant state churches and confessions. If this question is not really on the way towards a solution, in the judgement of history no false or stupid objections will be able to dispute the fact that this service was rendered by the volkisch movement at a time when, unfortunately, just as in the Roman Church, many pastors and superintendents without reason have opposed the national uprising in the most violent, indeed, often fanatical, way.
-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address on 22 July 1933 to the German people after a performance of Wagner's Christian allegory Parsifal in Bayreuth. [from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

[This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism.]

I believe that Providence would never have allowed us to see the victory of the Movement if it had the intention after all to destroy us at the end.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to old members of the Party at Munich on 8 Nov. 1933

The German Church and the People are practically the same body. Therefore there could be no issue between Church and State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church. The election of November 12th would be an expression of church constituency, but not as a Church.
-Adolf Hitler, answering C. F. Macfarland about Church & State (in his book, The New Church and the New Germany)

While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934

Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934

It would have been more to the point, more honest and more Christian, in past decades not to support those who intentionally destroyed healthy life than to rebel against those who have no other wish than to avoid disease. Moreover, a policy of laissez faire in this sphere is not only cruelty to the individual guiltless victims but also to the nation as a whole.... If the Churches were to declare themselves ready to take over the treatment and care of those suffering from hereditary diseases, we should be quite ready to refrain from sterilizing them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 30 Jan. 1934

We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on 19 March, 1934

The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren ), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of to-day.
-Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda

No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine (Lehre ) of the Confessions or with their religious freedom (Bekenntnisfreiheit ), nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends....
National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

So far as the Evangelical Confessions are concerned we are determined to put an end to existing divisions, which are concerned only with the forms of organization, and to create a single Evangelical Church for the whole Reich....
And we know that were the great German reformer [Martin Luther] with us to-day he would rejoice to be freed from the necessity of his own time and, like Ulrich von Hutten, his last prayer would be not for the Churches of the separate States: it would be of Germany that he would think and of the Evangelical Church of Germany.
-Adolf Hitler, in his Proclamation at the Parteitag at Nuremberg on 5 Sept. 1934

[Note, Martin Luther provided Germany with the seeds of violent antisemitism. Learn about Martin Luther's dirty little book.

What we are we have become not against, but with, the will of Providence. And so long as we are true and honourable and of good courage in fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall continue to enjoy in the future the blessing of Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, at Rosenheim in Bavaria, 11 Aug. 1935

Only so you can appeal to your God and pray Him to support and bless your courage, your work, your perseverance, your strength, your resolution, and with all these your claim on life.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Frankfurt on 16 March 1936

In this world him who does not abandon himself the Almighty will not desert. Him who helps himself will the Almighty always also help; He will show him the way by which he can gain his rights, his freedom, and therefore his future.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Hamburg on 20 March 1936

Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.
-Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

I believe in Providence and I believe Providence to be just. Therefore I believe that Providence always rewards the strong, the industrious, and the upright.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to National Socialist women at the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1936 [11 Sept. 1936]

So long as they concern themselves with their religious problems the State does not concern itself with them. But so soon as they attempt by any means whatsoever-- by letters, Encyclica, or otherwise-- to arrogate to themselves rights which belong to the State alone we shall force them back into their proper spiritual, pastoral activity.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin on the May Day festival, 1937

We National Socialists, too, have deep in our hearts our own faith. We cannot do otherwise. No man can mould the history of peoples or of the world unless he has upon his will and his capacities the blessing of Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, to Nazi leaders on 2 June 1937, as reported by a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph"

I will never allow anyone to divide this people once more into religious camps, each fighting the other....
You, my Brown Guard, will regard it as a matter of course that this German people should go only by the way which Providence ordained for it when it gave to Germans the common language. So we go forward with the profoundest faith in God into the future. Would that which we have achieved have been possible if Providence had not helped us?
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Regensburg on 6 June 1937

If we pursue this way, if we are decent, industrious, and honest, if we so loyally and truly fulfill our duty, then it is my conviction that in the future as in the past the Lord God will always help us. In the long run He never leaves decent folk in the lurch. Often He may test them, He may send trials upon them, but in the long run He always lets His sun shine upon them once more and at the end He gives them His blessing.
-Adolf Hitler, at the Harvest Thanksgiving Festival on the Buckeburg held on 3 Oct. 1937

This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work. When I see, as I so often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have the feeling that they are all apostles of a Christianity-- and in truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession, for behind it stand not words but deeds.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking of the Winter Help Campaign on 5 Oct. 1937

Remain strong in your faith, as you were in former years. In this faith, in its close-knit unity our people to-day goes straight forward on its way and no power on earth will avail to stop it.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Coburg on 15 Oct. 1937

In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty.... If Providence had not guided us I could often never have found these dizzy paths.... Thus it is that we National Socialists, too, have in the depths of our hearts our faith. We cannot do otherwise: no man can fashion world-history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Wurzburg on 27 June 1937

National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.
-Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

[Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. Here he clearly expresses his stand against cults and reinforces his Christian views.]

The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 1 Jan. 1939

Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views (Einstellung), nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted.... The Churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the State... Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favoured in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, &c., it enjoys immunity from taxation.
It is therefore, to put mildly-- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich.... I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?
3. The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion.... There are ten thousands and ten thousands of priests of all the Christian Confessions who perform their ecclesiastical duties just as well as or probably better than the political agitators without ever coming into conflict with the laws of the State.... This State has only once intervened in the internal regulation of the Churches, that is when I myself in 1933 endeavoured to unite the weak and divided Protestant Churches of the different States into one great and powerful Evangelical Church of the Reich. That attempt failed through the opposition of the bishops of some States; it was therefore abandoned. For it is in the last resort not our task to defend or even to strengthen the Evangelical Church through violence against its own representatives.... But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.
-Adolf Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939

[That last sentence sums up Hitler's stand on the priesthood. Rather than standing for atheism, as today's Christians would like, Hitler attacked the priesthood only if they stood in Hitler's political path.]

If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the "Old Guard" at Munich on 24 Feb. 1939


Baynes, Norman H. Ed. "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939," Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942

Cornwell, John, "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII," Viking, 1999

Steigmann-Gall, Richard "The Holy Reich: Nazi conception of Christianity, 1919-1945," Cambridge University Press, 2003


Date: 2006/05/21 13:41:37, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[quote=thordaddy,May 21 2006,18:29][/quote]
A bigot is one who sticks to his opinions and prejudices regardless of outside influence.  It has nothing to do with giving or withholding civil rights.  

REALLY? Does that mean that if you lived in a place where your political and religious beliefs made you an unpopular minority, and everyone around you, say, tried to force you to abandon Christianity, and you resisted, then you would be a 'bigot'?

So, basically ANY persecuted group that refuses to change its opinions under societal pressure is 'bigoted'.

TD, you don't get to redefine words based on your, well, bigotry. Here's a definition 'bigot' that's a bit more reality-based:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."


Ericmurphy seems to fit the definition of a bigot towards traditional marriage.  

Why would your bizarre definition of bigot somehow not apply to people trying to, say, give blacks the right to vote? Because such people certainly 'stuck to their opinions and prejudices regardless of outside influence.'

Secondly, civil rights apply to individuals and not groups of people.  Are you unaware of this simple American tradition?

If civil rights apply to individuals, and not groups, how can you ban marriage to gays? How can you codify that into law without mentioning a group?

Gay "marriage" renders marriage meaningless at any societal level.  

How? You saying it doesn't make it so. You've failed to give ANY coherent explanation of why gay marriage would have the disastrous effects you fantasize.

If you're honest enough to answer the above questions then you will see it very clearly.

Wrong. Tossing an unsupported opinion of yours into the middle of the room does not constitute 'argumentation'. But I have no idea why any of us expect better from you.

Date: 2006/05/21 14:34:19, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 21 2006,19:30)
Ooh ooh a Hitler quote fight! Can I play too?

Oooh, thanks, I'll add that one to my collection!

Date: 2006/05/21 14:50:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
But I think we can agree it's not:

Date: 2006/05/21 14:53:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (k.e @ May 21 2006,19:51)
STJ there are a couple of new names here for you
Hugo Now
Gene Theives

Hugo Steelgenes walks into a futuristic brain bar and orders a beer and a young ....

this could could be fun.

Um, I think you posted this on the wrong thread...

Date: 2006/05/22 04:25:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.

'Transitory'? I think this person meant to say 'transitional'.

Anyway, this is the ironic thing, in that one could kinda sorta maybe make a case that CATALAN is "Spanish + French". But it's still closer to Spanish.

There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.

Dave, the vast majority of geologists -- people FAR better informed than you, including many Christians -- agree that the Global Flood NEVER HAPPENED. Why do they disagree with you? They know more than you, and yet they do not share your opinion. Why is this? Because they're all wicked?

Do you think geologists who don't believe in the Flood are all going to he11?

Date: 2006/05/22 04:42:20, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Gee, Dave, you ignored MY response to you, and now you're somehow claiming MY words proved YOUR argument? Aren't you Christian types supposed to NOT LIE?

Dave, you haven't proved anything. Some French people in Portugal does not prove that Portuguese is a 'mix of French and Spanish'. I asked you for evidence that this was the case and you produced nothing. Real evidence would be French grammatical elements found in Portuguese and not Spanish. Didn't happen.

Your vague impressions of what Portuguese sounds like does not prove anything. People with actual training in linguistics agree that the phonetic developments separating Portuguese from Spanish are INDEPENDENT of French. At most, Portuguese acquired some French loanwords in the 18th century and later (after the Brazilian/European Portuguese split! ) that every other western European language has.  If you think that is evidence that Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French, then it also means that English is a mix of French, Latin, Spanish, Greek, etc. No linguist would say that, because borrowings do not make a mixed language.

So basically, you're wrong, Dave. We know you came here to missionize, but you're giving people here a dismal impression of Christians as  ignorant, dishonest, irrational, and arrogant.

And please do not claim that my words prove your argument. There are times when knowledge IS more important than attitude, Dave.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:02:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,09:55)
Gee, Dave, you ignored MY response to you, and now you're somehow claiming MY words proved YOUR argument?

Your response was irrelevant.  And yes, YOUR words showed the validity of my argument.

Thanks for the help!

(Oh, and if you think Christians are not tough in their speech sometimes, go read the New Testament and see how tough Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. This is a common misconception that Christians are somehow supposed to be Casper Milktoast or something.  Or how about the founders of this country? ... you want talk about some tough talking Christians!;)

So here we have Dave's response when backed into a corner and losing -- declare all counterarguments 'irrelevant'  and declare victory. This is the same way he's 'proved' Noah's Flood and a Young Earth.

Dave, if my counterarguments are 'irrelevant', why do all the experts disagree with you ONCE AGAIN? Does their superior level of knowledge make them LESS qualified to make judgements on these things?

Seriously, Dave -- when Christians act like this, it makes a dismal impression.

I'm not saying Christians aren't supposed to be tough -- but what I am saying is that they're not supposed to be liars. You, uh, haven't done well in that regard.

I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:10:13, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,09:50)
Now my curiosity is piqued. You claimed    
if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights
I would have no reason to doubt this. It still doesn't prove your point about the language, and Arden Chatfield only allowed that a massive French influence would be necessary, not sufficient to leave a significant linguistic footprint. But, again, I would have no reason to doubt it, except for the fact that you stated it, and you have an unbroken record for being wrong. So I'm going to check it out, and report back. See you then!

Correct, it is a necessary condition to a massive French influence on Portuguese, but not sufficient. A large no. of foreign language speakers moving into a country is not usually sufficient to change the host language at all. It's quite common for this sort of thing to happen without the language changing. For example, there are a huge number of Spanish speakers in the American southwest, and aside from some Spanish loanwords, English as spoken there is basically unaffected by it. Dave hasn't shown the necessary massive, continued bilingualism necessary here. And in a way, it doesn't matter, since what's important is what the languages are like, and the Portuguese language does not show anything more than minor French influence.

Dave's refusal to admit a mistake here is remarkable. His own ego seems to be much more important to him than representing Christians in a favorable light.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:14:01, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Dembski, big surprise, has been conned by an urban legend:

Date: 2006/05/22 05:36:59, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:24)
[deja vu]

Hey Dave, did you check my links yet? You must have, since you asked for them...

So, I take it you saw how everyone agrees that:
-Portuguese has it's origins directly in Vulgar Latin
-Is, in fact, the closest language to Latin after Italian
-It was formed gradually (as Galician-Portuguese) during the early Middle Ages and on to the Arab occupation, separately -and spoken in a different location- than Castillian (that would lead to Spanish)
-Galician-Portuguese (not Spanish, and certainly NOT
French) became the official Language of the newfound kingdom
-Galician and Portuguese later diverged, and Portuguese began to resemble more its modern form
-The FIRST substantial French influence to the language came in the 18th century, leading to al the differences between, say, Portuguese and Brazilian.

Well, now that you've read all that (and I'm sure you have) I suppose you can start proving why all these people are totally wrong, and the European history of Languages has to be rewritten, right?

[/deja vu]

Slightly off track, the Brazilian versus European Portuguese thing here is interesting. A couple websites have stated that most French loanwords in Portuguese are in European Portuguese but not Brazilian Portuguese. This is like saying that a big foreign influence was present in British English but not American English. Given that European and Brazilian Portuguese are still unquestionably mutually intelligible, and the same language, this indicates that in real linguistic terms the French influence on Portuguese is actually quite recent and rather superficial. Certainly nowhere near enough for Portuguese to be a 'mix' of Spanish and French.

Actually, there are ways in which Brazilian Portuguese is both more conservative and less conservative than European Portuguese. Brazilian does retain some elements of pronunciation that European Portuguese once had but has since lost. But this is normal. The same holds true of American versus British English, in that there are archaisms in American English that British English lost, as well.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:45:46, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ May 22 2006,10:32)
A great example of a great Christian "tough guy" !!


You guys just can't get used to the fact that you lost the Portuguese thing, can you ...

John Adams was a deist too. You are so stupid I'm beginning to think it's a miracle.

I haven't even begun to debate the portuguese thing yet. Are you taking my bet? Have you, in fact, shot your whole wad to prove that it is a mix of french and spanish? I can only assume that you have only given the briefest outline.

But, 1/2-a-Dave,
Duh. You are an idiot.

You know, the funny thing is, if Dave had just backed down 3 days ago and said something like "Oh, whoops, my mistake, I guess Portuguese isn't really a mix of French and Spanish. It just sounds like French. Okay, I guess you guys are right", then this whole discussion would have evaporated and we would have held a slightly higher opinion of Dave's intellectual integrity.

But hey, if that happened, we wouldn't be talking about Dave then, now would we?

I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened. So he has to dig in his heels on every silly boneheaded mistake he makes, making his position MUCH worse in the process. So he has to declare all linguists and geologists and biologists 'irrelevant', and he certainly will never admit that the Founding Fathers weren't all a bunch of Fundies like him.


Oh, BTW, Dave? Being honest does not make one a wimp, whatever the Air Force and your pastor told you.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:55:44, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:42)
And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

Correct. Spanish and Portuguese apparently started to diverge noticeably around the 12th century. The Portuguese didn't colonize Brazil til around 600 years after that, I think, by which time Portuguese was definitely a well defined language.

It's also a big mistake to think of Portuguese just diverging from Spanish and Spanish staying the same all that time. The whole time Portuguese was becoming Portuguese, Spanish was also undergoing its own important changes as well. From what I gather, Portuguese is actually MORE conservative than Spanish in terms of grammar and morphology. To say that Portuguese is descended from Spanish is exactly the same as saying humans are descended from chimpanzees. In fact, Portuguese and Spanish are both descended from Proto-Iberian Romance, which was not the same as any language spoken now.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:03:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 22 2006,11:01)
Ed Brayton makes a similar (and as always, excellent observation):  
There are some people who are so ridiculous that it would be impossible to invent them if they didn't actually exist. Larry Fafarman is one of them. A psychologist would have a field day with someone so utterly convinced of his own importance that he prefers to make a fool of himself for attention rather than risk non-existence.
 What difference, really, is there between Dave and Larry?  Has anybody noticed one?

Their writing styles are pretty different. Plus, Larry almost never mentions Jesus. And Dave lacks Larry's obsession with lawyers.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:08:35, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:04)
I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened.
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?

Arden, precisely the REVERSE of what you say is true.  

YOU are the one that will never admit defeat no matter how looney you look.

Ah, I missed that. Sorry. And I'm glad you admitted it.

So, now, in an attempt to prove to us that you're not 'looney', are you now willing to admit you were wrong on your linguistic statements, the founding fathers all being Christians, a Young Earth, Noah's flood, and scientists all 'jumping ship' on evolution? 'Cause none of those things are true, either...

Date: 2006/05/22 06:18:27, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ May 22 2006,11:10)
It's DaveTard, not The Wayne Newton of Information Theory, that posted that story.  Though Dembski did respond with a "right on!" comment.

And Dembski HAS been extremely active today.  What's up?  Someone mix a little meth into his oatmeal?  He's so hyperactive he's disproven evolution several times and it's not even noon yet!

He may be active today, but at 9:15am PST the anti-ACLU urban legend is still there, with both non-Dembski comments still pointing out it's bogus. I think Dumbo and his man are both asleep at the wheel this morning...

Date: 2006/05/22 06:28:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Also, as was mentioned earlier, Despite the Norman invasion, English maintained it's basic syntax and borrowed essentially just vocabulary from the french invaders. However, the French words we got are a little closer to latin than modern french maybe.

Right, by far most of the big French influence on English was lexical, and most of it took place 600-800 years ago. Some of the French words English borrowed look more like Old French rather than modern French. A good example is that when most of these French words entered English, French still kept old Latin 'st'. So English has French loanwords like 'beast' and 'feast', with 'st', while French subsequently deleted 's' before 't', which is why modern French now has 'bete' and 'fete' (sorry, I don't know how to make the accents work).

English is also very grammatically simplified compared to most of Germanic, but the current consensus is that the grammatical simplification English underwent was not due to the Norman invasions, but was in fact the result of the NORSE invasions a couple centuries before that, when large numbers of Norse speakers invaded eastern England. That invasion also left a large layer of (Norse) loanwords, including some very basic words like 'they' and 'egg'.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:38:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
More like ID inaction.

Anyway, now there's THREE commenters pointing out it's bogus.

I bet the 'Lucius Traveler' name was made up to subliminally remind people of the phrase 'fellow traveller'. These urban legends aren't subtle.

I think if they're smart they'll just erase that whole thread and pretend it never happened. Of course, WE'LL know, but a lot of the UD regulars seem never to come here...

Date: 2006/05/22 06:42:55, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
This is just priceless...


No.  I won the Portuguese thing thanks to Rilke's Wikipedia article, my Medieval Encyclopedia and your own admission.  You can go argue that one against me with Rilke until you are blue in the face if you want.  But you'll be talking to the wind.

Okay, Dave, please tell us why you 'won the Portuguese thing' because of the Wikipedia article, and how you have addressed the objections to your argument. I'm dying to hear it.

And also please tell us why the linguists are all wrong on this while you are right.

Date: 2006/05/22 07:07:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 22 2006,12:02)
Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2006,11:57)
A pro-incest person could be motivated by the bible. Where did Cain's wife come from?

I think AFDave has an answer for that one.

We know what Carol Clouser would say:

That is none of your business!

Date: 2006/05/22 07:41:34, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (normdoering @ May 22 2006,12:29)
Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,12:08)
And just so Dave knows, folks: let's take a little poll. Who here believes that Dave has established the truth of his original assertion: that Portuguese is "Spanish and French mixed"?
I suppose that, given the way this is worded, one could take lack of response as a vote against dave. But I'll make it explicit: I, for one, don't believe he has even begun to establish it.

I think all languages are constantly mixed.

We english speakers use a lot of latin in science and academics -- for example: ad absurdum, a phrase that describes afdave's arguments is basically latin. As is and does ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Aficionado is Spanish and angst is German.

That's just a tiny tip  off the iceberg.

Well sure, probably every language in the world has loanwords. Some have lots more than others. Japanese and English are especially uninhibited about borrowing words from other languages. But it's a matter of degree. There is a whole spectrum of possible influence one language can have on another, from just words, to pronunciation, to morphology, to syntax. The degree of 'mixing' between English and French could have gone a lot further, in that it didn't go much past borrowed words. That is, it didn't have much of an influence on English grammar.

There actually IS a linguistic concept of a 'mixed language', and when one sees one of those, you see huge influences in grammar, word order, pronunciation -- influences seeping through at all levels. A good example of this is Vietnamese, which is actually an Austroasiatic language, and thus related to Khmer, but it underwent such a massive influence from neighboring (unrelated) language families like Tai and Chinese that it quit looking much at all like an Austroasiatic language, acquiring tone and making all its words monosyllabic. In fact, its Austroasiatic affinity was hidden for decades because of this, and was only discovered in the middle of the 20th century. That's much closer to being a 'mixed language', and there are other languages that are even better examples.

But I agree, no language is 'pure' or exists in a vacuum.

Date: 2006/05/22 07:59:28, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hey, check this out from DT!

To everyone who’s pointed out that the ACLU story is a fabrication according to - that’s hardly the point. The pictures of Marines praying are real. The fighting and dying to protect the interests of the United States is real. The request to pray for them is real. So I think I’ll just echo the supposedly non-existent Colonel Fessender and say, from the very real former Marine Sergeant David Springer, “Screw the ACLU and screw anyone who’s got a problem with this post.”

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!

Comment by DaveScot — May 22, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

So, basically, what DM is saying here is "even though this story is bullshit, it's still fundamentally true. So there."

(AND he erased all the comments except for Dembski's initial comment.)

Our Davetard never disappoints.

Date: 2006/05/22 08:50:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 22 2006,13:38)
Quote (Colin @ May 22 2006,13:27)
In other words, "It doesn't matter that the post is totally factually inaccurate, nor that it attacks the ACLU for something that they have not, in fact, done.  This post is just about creating the impression that the ACLU has done something wrong."

For a group so outwardly obsessed with public morality, creationists never cease to amaze me with their compulsive disregard for basic honesty.

From BarryA a week ago:


... any quotation must be accompanied by an accurate citation to the quotation’s source, and in my experience ID proponents and creationist are assiduous in this respect..

DaveTard WAS assiduous about citing his source! It was an email that a 'dear friend' sent him!


In other words, "It doesn't matter that the post is totally factually inaccurate, nor that it attacks the ACLU for something that they have not, in fact, done.  This post is just about creating the impression that the ACLU has done something wrong."

Exactly. In fact, that's why that bogus news story was created in the first place: to create the IMPRESSION among people too lazy to check that the ACLU had done this wicked act. And if it weren't for us, it would have worked exactly as planned with Davetard. There are actually a huge number of bogus news stories like this on snopes, circulated on email and created by anonymous wingnuts to give other wingnuts warm fuzzies.

DT's rationalization of this is presumably that this is the kind of thing the ACLU would have done if they'd thought of it, so that 'makes the story true'. You know, the same evidence he has that we all burn churches and spread Ebola.

Date: 2006/05/22 08:55:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Now I remember why I paid no attention to most of AFDave's vanity threads. This person is an ignorant, delusional liar, and he's unteachable. Unless he says something flamboyantly stupid or dishonest about the linguistic arguments again, I'm not responding to him again.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:31:50, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
There is not one iota of doubt in my mind that the ACLU would love to do the same thing to prayer in the military. Prayers led by commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the Corps are common. The military builds and maintains chapels on military bases. They employ religious clerics whose job is spiritual counseling and leading worship services. Anyone that thinks the ACLU wouldn’t stand against that if they could get away with it needs their head examined. They simply know the American public wouldn’t tolerate it and the ACLU would be so harmed they might never recover as an organization. So they bite their anti-religious tongues in the interest of self-preservation.

(my boldfacing added)

See! Told you!

It has nothing to do with what you've done -- it's all about what DaveTard thinks you'd do if you could. You're guilty of that.

(Not too different from AFDave using a flood that didn't happen and a rapture that he THINKS will happen as 'evidence'.)

That said, I do believe DT is following this thread and responding to it!

Hi Dave! How goes? Hot enough for ya?

And to think DT did all this on Monday morning. It looks like a very promising week for rich, creamy, DaveTardy goodness.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:35:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 22 2006,14:17)
And if I want to marry a goat because god tells me to, then who am I to criticize?

I thought you said god was into sheep?  something about him going off with a sheep for 30 years or sumat?

'Sumat'? Are you from northern England originally? 'Cause the only other person I've known who used that term was from West Yorkshire...

(Tho I think he usually spells it 'summat'.)

Date: 2006/05/22 09:43:30, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,14:15)
As of now, "google that!" is my new favorite daveism.

It's highly reminiscent of DT's buddy Davison's deathless "Write that down!"

Date: 2006/05/22 10:00:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Colin @ May 22 2006,14:55)
I think that what we have here is an advanced case of ACLU Derangement Syndrome.

I really do have to get off my cheapskate ass and send them a check. If nothing else, DT is one of the best advertisements for them I could imagine.

Date: 2006/05/22 12:03:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield

Amen and amen. Stupid and immoral evolutionists think they can ignore theology, but evolutionism is nothing but theology. It is the religion of self-worship where any man can crown himself a diety. True, the average evolutionist, having a God-given void in his head, fails to live out the implications of his amoral ontology, and often will act as moral as any Christian. However, I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity, such as  this guy, this guy, or this guy.

GOP, this is gross self-parody even for you. Are you hung over today, or something? Or just given up on the whole 'objective scientist' thing? You're talking like some idiot at Uncommon Descent, and I thought you were a tad smarter than that.

Oh, BTW, as an 'average evolutionist', I'm sorry I disappoint you by "failing to live out the implications of my amoral ontology". Would it make you happier if I went out and committed some crimes, to vindicate your cartoonish preconceptions? You know, to prove that your preconceptions aren't, you know, full of shit?

PS: Castro, Chomsky and Kim Jong Il have all "wrought abominable consequences upon humanity"? Dare I ask who Chomsky has killed? And why Castro and Kim Jong-Il are representatives of evolution?

Really, whatever you're on, cut the dose, Paley.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:11:02, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2006,18:50)
Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything.


Yeah, I guess this means Paley consults his Bible first before he figures out whether his car needs an oil change.

Let's hope his faith healer keeps him healthy.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:17:23, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (dhogaza @ May 22 2006,18:28)
Taciturnus proves the mind is not merely material!
For example, if our minds are purely material, how is it that we can both think of the same number, “2" for instance? The matter that makes up your head and the matter that makes up my head are not the same matter, and if thinking “2" is nothing more than a rearrangement of matter in our respective brains, then “2" cannot be identical for us since the arrangement of matter will not be exactly identical in both our brains; and even if it was, it isn’t the same matter. Yet we clearly CAN think of the same number “2", therefore our minds cannot be merely material.

Yeah, I remember the first time I took too much, too.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:22:08, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ May 22 2006,18:17)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 22 2006,15:08)
Gene-Oh writes:

Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?

No Pepe, I do not believe this. You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. I am not a crank. I do not believe organisms can pass on character traits to their progeny via food. I only maintain food confounds genetic testing results. Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in this seminal paper* describes the great genetic similarities between humans and bananas. I wonder where this comes from? Other Creationists have noticed this too. My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!

Are you serious, Ghost?

Something seems to have happened to Paley over the weekend. He seems to have lost his marbles in a big way, plus he seems angrier than ever.

Date: 2006/05/22 15:27:17, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
[Spicoli, talking on the phone, hits his head with a shoe]

Jeff Spicoli: That was my skull! I'm so wasted!

Date: 2006/05/23 04:12:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Those of you who know Latin can see at once what a strong influence that language had on the French spoken in the ninth century.

The wording of this is a bit odd -- it isn't that Latin had a 'strong influence' on French -- French came from Latin.

As for what the Burgundian Knights spoke at certain times, that's stepping into ancient European history, which I never really studied. Tho I do know that Burgundy was originally Germanic speaking a very long time ago.

Date: 2006/05/23 04:19:42, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Hey Dave, since you're completely ignoring 95% of our objections to your little theory on Portuguese, can you answer just this one question? If you're right, how come no linguistic experts agree with you?

Is this another one of those things like biology where you feel like anyone who's studied it at all must be wrong, and only amateurs can be right?

Date: 2006/05/23 04:23:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 23 2006,00:50)
Sorry, Tina, but I’m not going to take the bait, tempting as it is.

Comment by William Dembski — May 22, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

that's because he's been burned every time he's tried.

Yeah, he now knows better than to try and match the evolutionists' "pathetic level of detail".

Plus, he knows he can't do it anyway.

Date: 2006/05/23 05:26:43, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2006,10:20)
Some creationist here in the last few days said something similar, along the lines of 'autonomous human reasoning is worthless, you have to just assume the bible is true'.

That was the great Ghost of Paley!

Here's the little gem itself:

Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything. Mankind, being affected by sin, can only reason from the implications of his presuppositions; he can only reason in a circle. Hence, the truth of the Bible must be pre-supposed, and not argued for in order to ground any knowledge claims at all.

Is it just me, but is this awfully retrograde even for GoP? Seems he usually tries harder to pretend to be a scientist than that.

Date: 2006/05/23 05:36:40, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2006,18:06)
can you out-thordaddy thordaddy?

And what if a mother wants to marry her three year old twins? Will you evolutionists accept the logical conclusions of your philosophy?!?!?!?

Let me give it a shot...

(takes deep breath, cracks knuckles, stretches)


Okay, I have to take a shower now...

Date: 2006/05/23 05:51:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Fross @ May 23 2006,10:42)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." –Mahatma Gandhi

I don't know. For me it was ignore, then curiosity, then laughter and now it's a weird form of pity.  Look at Dembski doing his last "flailing before you drown" act over at UD.  He's buying domains in the name of his culture war.  What's he going to do next?  Fart in our general direction?

For some time now my impression of the UD crowd is that they're a bunch of little children. Their discussions of science always remind me of some kids getting into their parents' trunk full of old clothes in the attic. There they are up there, wearing clothes that are far too big for them, with the sleeves way past their arms, swanning around, pretending to be grownups.

Scientists do research and write peer-reviewed books and articles. They teach classes. They discover new things.

Dembski buys domain names, does press releases, whines about Dawkins' atheism, and reports people he doesn't like to the Department of Homeland Security. He teaches at Bible colleges in the south. His flunky, the retired Marine, grows mold in his basement, posts urban legends, rants about the ACLU, and tries to dig up compromising information on his 'opponents' on the internet.

Yeah. Hard choice.

Date: 2006/05/23 05:57:14, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I'm noticing a pattern here. Everyone except AFD is doing research, discussing the issues, weighing the different possibilities, and asking questions. Every twentieth message, AFD comes in, ignores all the questions, declares that he's won, and snarls about Rilke's granddaughter 'admitting defeat'.

Oh yes, and every so often he says that he hopes we'll all come to Jesus.

I sorta don't see the point of responding to AFD anymore, tho some of the linguistic discussions are still interesting. The less they have to do with AFD, the more interesting they are.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:11:26, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
AFDave tries valiantly to steer discussion away from the reality-based realm about which he knows nothing, and to steer it toward YEC talking points and low-rent Fundamentalist Protestant apologetics. He still wants to bring us all to Jesus. He wants to brag to his pastor that he single-handedly 'converted' a bunch of wicked secular humanist evolutionists with his knowledge and devastating rhetorical skills. Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel make total scientific sense, and he wants to share this knowledge with us, of course in a very objective way. He knows that if he has to tell a few lies to do this, Jesus will of course understand.

He also wants to start with a clean slate. He hopes we'll all forget all the questions he's ignored and all the times we've pointed out how nonsensical his statements are. This is fine. Jesus is more important than all those things. In the bigger sense, anything a Christian says is 'more right' than anything a nonchristian says.

I think it's time to start ignoring this guy, personally. This shit is getting old.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:52:49, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Russell @ May 23 2006,11:11)
Indeed, it is no coincidence that, ever since Henry of Burgundy, one of the major exports from Portugal has been olive oïl. I rest dave's case.

Portuguese is oïl, Spanish is vinegar. QED.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:59:33, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
GoP, you used the phrase 'amoral ontology' yesterday. You need to work up some new material.

Date: 2006/05/23 07:20:00, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (BWE @ May 23 2006,12:15)
First you need to get through tectonics. Then we can start with evolution.

I haven't been paying attention, has AFD explicitly rejected plate tectonics?

Date: 2006/05/23 07:44:52, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
He assuredly did not concede on the Portuguese issue. He said he's "past that" now. Like he won the argument and he's moving on to new conquests.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:06:29, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (jeannot @ May 23 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?
No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.  The Creator then put a curse on all of nature to remind humans of sin and the need for a Saviour, and to remind us that this world is not our true home.  God will at a future time RE-create the heavens and the earth and they will once again be perfect.  Humans who choose to believe God will be with Him eternally in the newly created heavens and earth.  Those who do not will be eternally separated from Him.  Mutations are assumed by creationists to be a part of this "curse."

Dave, you're going to surpass our friend paley.  :)

So god decided to break GULO in all primates, and produce a nested hierachy of shared errors in this peudo-gene, which matches the phylogenies of perfectly designed working genes? Or did it just happen by chance?

Yes. God got way pissed at us for that Garden of Eden thing, so he took away our Vitamin C as punishment.

I'm, uh, not sure why all the other primates got their Vitamin C taken away, too. Hopefully AFD will explain that.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:10:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (k.e @ May 23 2006,12:57)
Thinking of cuising on the Panama Canal in 50Million years D/2 ?
Better be quick it won't be there then.
The Atlantic Ocean will be much larger 50 million years from now

India will probably also be much smaller since it will have had another 50 million years to keep crashing into Asia.

The idea of 'New Himalayas' in southern Europe is pretty cool.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:19:12, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Ved @ May 23 2006,13:06)
Don't ask Dave about fossil fuels. He knows that because coal can be made in a relatively short amount of time, that all of it had to have been formed that way.

Hey, we make diamonds in factories all the time. All the ones we dig out of the ground must have been formed in a short amount of time too.


Very good, Grasshopper. Truly you have mastered thinking like a IDC expert.

Now for your next lesson, go off into the wilderness and concentrate until you have fully assimilated the following logic:

1) there are things science cannot explain.

2) therefore science cannot explain anything.

3) therefore, Creationism must be true.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:22:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
I dunno, AFD's taught me a lot about how Christian Fundamentalists think...

Date: 2006/05/23 09:15:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,13:40)
I predict that Michael Denton will probably go down in history as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th Century.  Henry Morris may actually claim the leading title for his leadership of the modern Creationist revival, but there is no doubt that men like Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski will be names long remembered once the rotting corpse of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is buried and forgotten.

Don't forget Jack Chick.

Date: 2006/05/23 09:18:47, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
As for Portuguese ... you guys can go argue that one among yourselves.  You don't like what I have to say anyway, so why would you want me involved?  To me it sounds like "The sky is blue. No it's not ... you're an idiot.  Yes it is, see, look at it.  It's not EXACTLY blue, see, it's really Royal Blue. And here we have all these sources that don't say anything about it being blue to prove that it's Royal Blue.  Come argue with us, please, Davy.  We really want to show you how smart we are and how dumb you are.  OK?  Please?"

All well and good Dave, but can you please explain to me why all the linguists disagree with you?

Is it because they're all liberals? All atheists?

Date: 2006/05/23 14:57:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 23 2006,19:46)
I bet that you won't be able to tease out economic and socio-economic factors.

Probably not. That's why I found the interracial study so appealing - despite what Jared Taylor may think, long-term interracial marriages do exist. Yet stable, two-parent families weren't enough for these kids. The implication for other "nontraditional" marriages is obvious.
The way someone else raises their kids isn't really your business.

Until their kids start hassling my kids.* Then it becomes my business.
I can't imagine that children of loving parents could be any worse off than children of parents who aren't socialized well enough to be loving. Or are you arguing that Gay people don't really love?

I'm sure they'll do their best, but reality will remain unmoved. It is as it was, and continues to be.

*Hypothetical situation for now.

It's that amoral ontology what does it.

[clucks disapprovingly]

Date: 2006/05/24 06:14:05, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (beervolcano @ May 24 2006,09:42)
Just wanted to share my personal connection that I had recently with our Creator, um, Intelligent Designer, that endowed us with inalienable rights. I will thank Him every day from now on for showing Himself to me at the store. He's now hanging out with me in my own home! I can honestly say that I feel touched.

He doesn't come right out and say he's there, but I see him in his Noodly Glory.

Notice the nod to JAD on the package.

Oooh! JAD and the FSM! That's what the marketing types call 'crossover', innit?

The 'extra sour' might also refer to Dembski.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:19:24, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 24 2006,10:34)

Keeping some Darwinists around on these threads would help generate interesting,and lively, discussions, or has there been too much ugliness around here when dissent was given free reign?

Comment by apollo230 — May 24, 2006 @ 10:27 am

Can we, uh, assume that Apollo is new to UD?

Date: 2006/05/24 06:36:31, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Well, I promised I'd respond to AFD if he said anything moronic about linguistics again, and, well he did!

Did I say "thousands"?  Well, even Creos make misquotes once in a while.  I should have said "several contingents", which is the exact wording of this article.  I read "thousands" somewhere else, but failed to get the reference.  Do you really think it was not thousands?  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two.  But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French.  This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.

"I got me a gut hunch! That counts for way more them citified linguist-types with all their book-larnin!"

This is so obvious, folks.

Only if you're ignorant. It's also 'obvious' that the sun goes around the earth, no?

Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language.  

'Eyes open'? All the linguists who disagree with you have their eyes shut?

I dont know how you're defining 'commonality', but if you think 'things in common' prove that Portuguese is Spanish and French 'mixed', you're deluded. OF COURSE PORTUGUESE AND FRENCH HAVE THINGS IN COMMON, THEY'RE BOTH ROMANCE LANGUAGES!

Also, I have noticed that many of you lose focus on the goal of a discussion.  Again, let me remind you that my goal on the Portuguese thing was not to make a rigorous research project out of it.  

You have a gift for understatement.

My goal was simply to show Rilke that she does not help the cause of evolutionists by ranting and raving about how idiotic Creos are, which is what she did.  While it may turn out after Arden spends hours and hours of rigorous research that my "Portuguese is Spanish mixed with French" statement is overly simplistic,

Not 'overly simplistic'. False.

It didn't take me hours and hours of rigorous research, linguists before me have done all that research, and that's the conclusion THEY came up with.

it certainly is not idiotic to say this, and it doesn't help evolutionists look bright to just blindly blather that "Creos are idiots".  But again, I have no desire to spend hours and hours on this.  I proved my point.

You're delusional, Dave. Hate to tell you.

There are 3 lines of strong evidence that support that my statement was not idiotic, even though it may prove simplistic.  

Again, not simplistic. False.

If Rilke wants to disagree with me in the future, I might suggest using the "Jstockwell" approach which makes evolutionists sound a lot more sane.  I do have to ask ... why would you want to spend hours and hours proving the Portuguese thing?  

Well, I think we're fascinated that you could say something so ignorant with such self-assurance, and then REFUSE to admit you were wrong after being continually refuted for 3-4 days. Sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. As I said earlier, if you'd admitted you had your facts wrong last weekend, this subject would have gone away quite promptly.

But Arden and Rilke and Faid-- If you insist on doing a major research project on Portuguese, please do me a favor and start a new thread for it.  THX.

Not worth it. As much as I enjoy linguistic discussions, this isn't a linguistics board, plus we've already given you a mountain of evidence, which you've ignored. It would serve no purpose.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:43:48, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Ladlergo @ May 24 2006,11:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,12:14)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 24 2006,09:42)
Just wanted to share my personal connection that I had recently with our Creator, um, Intelligent Designer, that endowed us with inalienable rights. I will thank Him every day from now on for showing Himself to me at the store. He's now hanging out with me in my own home! I can honestly say that I feel touched.

He doesn't come right out and say he's there, but I see him in his Noodly Glory.

Notice the nod to JAD on the package.

Oooh! JAD and the FSM! That's what the marketing types call 'crossover', innit?

The 'extra sour' might also refer to Dembski.

/hangs head in shame
What is JAD?

"John A Davison", demented intelligent design advocate, bitter old crank, and retired professsor. He has a habit of ending all his screeds with the phrase "I love it so!"

Someone else can provide you with a link to his, uh, remarkable single-thread blog.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:50:22, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (Bing @ May 24 2006,11:44)
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,11:31)
...... to distinguish it from macroevolution, which is impossible and untrue, and which is what I'm fighting.  And remember, the reason I am fighting it is because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

There's the admission folks, in his own words.  Not a single word of this was about science.  There is nothing you can prove to him, nothing that will change his mind.  

He's here ... because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

'nuff said.  Ban him now.

I don't think anyone was under the illusion that AFD was ever here to learn. I think we could tell from the start that he was here to be a missionary, just like his parents. He's here to convert the wicked secular humanist heathens to Jesus and Young Earth Creationism, since he assumes they're the same thing. And I think there's been a consensus for a while that he's unteachable.

As for banning him? I dunno, maybe that should be Wesley's call?

Seems to me it might be a better idea to just ignore him, but I admit that takes a lot of will power.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:55:03, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Why is it a good idea to start a new thread devoted to AFDave? He's got way too many as it is. If there was a way to merge all the AFD threads into one and delete the originals, I'd be all for it.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:00:51, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
Quote (thordaddy @ May 24 2006,02:52)

The new face on the FBI's "Most Wanted" is some avowed polygamist.  Go figure?

How can one be "Liberal-broad-minded" if one is wedded to equality, non-discrimination and tolerance?  That sounds more like Liberal-no-minded.

You can obviously conceive of restrictive criteria for marriage, but this means nothing when the fundamental criteria (opposing sexes) of marriage becomes irrelevant.

You think bureaucratic redtape is a sufficient reason to deny someone their "equal rights?"

So now T-Diddy assumes 'liberals' want to legalize polygamy. Cool. What a mind.

That Polygamist on the FBI list must be a liberal, eh, Thordaddy?

Date: 2006/05/24 07:06:45, Link
Author: Arden Chatfield
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.

This is consistent for AFD, tho -- and for all other Creationists. Their whole agenda depends on convincing people that the more you know about a subject, the LESS qualified you are to speak about it. Thus the often-seen notion that biologists are the LAST people who should be talking about 'origins' -- much better to have mathematicians, engineers, pastors, or retired Air Force pilots. The less education they've had, the more 'objective' they are.

The goal of the religious right is to completely redefine what 'knowledge' and 'reality' are. If they can convince people that the most ignorant people are the best-qualified to make pronouncements on anything, their work is complete.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:24:45,